The Theories of Causality - Case Study Example

Topic: Social Interaction [Advanced Personal Development] Psychology [School Affiliation TAQ 2: Assessment Criteria 2 Aristotle was the pioneer in the theories of causality. He presented his four causes including the Material cause, upon which the constitution of the particular entity is based; the Formal cause, which includes the essence of the object under consideration; The Efficient cause, which deals with the external compulsion and antecedent events, and lastly, the Final cause which revolves around the end and purpose of the entity. Descartes based all his theories on Aristotles Efficient cause that every change is brought about by external compulsion acting on a body. This is mostly held true except for the fact that interpersonal compulsion was ruled out in this theory. Involvement of ones own thoughts affecting his actions occupies a major position in the Attribution Theory. David Hume believed in a regularity theory of causality that causes are an inference of non-causal observations as the time splices in the world are logically independent of each other. This was held true by most radical empiricists, but at certain instances it is possible to infer future events by evaluating the past patterns. Immanuel Kant argued that people have innate skills to interpret causes; this might be made possible by discerning the regularities to see if they are accidental or necessary for the causation of an event (White, P. 1990, p. 3-7). 2.2) While inferring the behaviour of others, we tend to get biased about our assumptions. This behaviour is a result of two type of factors; Situational (external) and Dispositional (internal). Situational factors include similar previous encounters and learned behaviour. Whereas, Dispositional factors include our own perceptions and beliefs regarding that matter and our view of the world. Fundamental Attribution Error occurs when we overestimate or exaggerate the internal factors but underestimate the external ones (Miller, D. and Ross, M., 1975, p.213-225). This happens because we tend to ignore the individual and pay attention to the situation. On the occasions of self-serving bias, people with high self-esteem equate their success with internal factors while they equate their failures with external factors. This case is reversed for people with low self-esteem as they attribute success to good luck and failure to their own stupidity. There has been a debate on whether attributional bias is cognitive or motivational; most experts agree that both the terms are interrelated as social categorization such as stereotyping plays a great role in biased assumptions while peer pressure and the need to acquire self-esteem also compels one towards it. Comparing one situation with another without sufficient information is one of the major causes of attributional biases, so is passing a judgement on emotional basis rather than calculating the rational aspects. (Sheppard,E. 2009, p.2-8). 3.1) People suffering from behavioural challenges are more in need of meta-cognitive strategies like self-monitoring, self-evaluation, goal setting etc. to improve positive social encounters. A self-monitoring strategy which will be discussed here includes a parent/child or teacher/student setting. Firstly, a target behaviour needs to be set and the student has to determine whether the target behaviour occurred or not. Afterwards, the student has to self-record a feature of the behaviour whose occurrences need to be increased or decreased. An acceptable number of occurrences is determined and the two subjects agree upon a method of reinforcement for obtaining it. This simple act of recording helps in modifying the target behaviour. Thus, self-monitoring techniques are helpful as they are easy to implement and can be used in combination with other strategies like self-instruction and goal setting etc. (Menzies, H., Lane, K. and Lee, J., 2009, p. 2-6). Full confessions are excellent ways of venting and development of better relationships, but this happens very rarely. Interviewing and filling questionnaires is a common method of collecting information on disclosure and encouraging teenagers to disclose their feelings but it is not very motivational in most cases as only a small number of people end up being totally honest about their feelings and opinions (Darling,N., Hames, K. and Cumsille, P., 2007.p.1-10). Most frequently used self-presentation methods include; self-promotion, ingratiation, exemplification, intimidation and supplication. In self-promotion, people call attention to their accomplishments in order to be liked, ingratiation includes the use of flattery to achieve acceptance; exemplification is going beyond what is expected to gain liking. Intimidation is the projection of power while supplication is the presentation of ones weaknesses to gain compassion. These strategies might be effective for a short period but in the long run they are incapable to provide one with likeability and acceptance (Lewis, M. and Neighbors, C., 2005, p.470). 4.1) Physical attraction is the most important element in the formation of relationships. Research shows that people tend to form relationships with people who are as attractive as their own selves because they accept the love which they feel they deserve. Personal hygiene and grooming also come under this category. Another significant factor is proximity as people who live close and see more of each other form better relationships. This rule is applicable to both friendly and romantic relationships as one can know more about a person by living in the same area or by meeting often. Similarity of attitudes is another factor worth considering as research conducted by Bryne shows that alikeness of attitudes is very important for the success of interpersonal relationships (Virtual Psychology. Co, 2010, p.2-11). Similarity in demographics is also deemed worthy as it is proved that people of same age, sex, and social class understand each other better. People tend to form relationships with people who have similar personality traits and shared interests because communication and interaction is easier with those people. So, in this case birds of a feather flock together is more applicable than opposites attract. 4.2) Friendship requires constant maintenance because it is a pledge for a lifetime relationship of trust, respect and compassion. The theory of balance in friendship states that all entities involved in a friendly relationship are equally important and have the same value. One friend is not better than the other due to his physical traits, social status or personal accomplishments. It is a relationship of give and take; thus one person cant always give as another cant always gain. It is not a matter of compulsion or obligation but rather a feeling of understanding and care. The theory of equality in friendship is justified by the Latin saying “Amicitia aut pares invenit, aut facit”; Friendship discovers or creates equals. This describes accurately the fact that friends are all on equal footing and proportionality (IvoryMelodies, 2012, N.p). The Social Exchange Theory states that friendship is the result of an exchange process where the exchange between two or more people takes place. The purpose of this exchange is the maximization of benefits and minimization of costs so that all the parties in the relationship can reap benefit from it. 4.3) The biggest reason behind the failure of a relationship is the loss of respect. When two people lose respect for each others ideas, priorities, feelings, and values, then a relationship is doomed to fail. Conflict and stress are a part of every relationship; what matters is whether one deals with it in a positive manner or not. Cheating, dishonesty, disrespecting ones promises, and lying are all major elements, which weaken the foundations of a relationship. Imbalance of power and inequality in a relationship are also unhealthy as one member feels superior while the other is stressed down. Ineffective communication, low self-esteem, and uncontrolled jealousy also play significant roles in this regard. 4.4) Steve Duck presented the model of relational dissolution that a break up is not merely an instantaneous event but rather a long term psychological process based on predictable factors. These factors may be sequential or compounded as they include personal reflection, discussion between the partners, the involvement of other people, and external factors. It consists of Intra-psychic Phase, Dyadic Phase, Social Phase and Grave Dressing Phase. While this model holds true for many relationships, research shows that it is not applicable to all failed relationships (Family.jrank.org, 1982, N.p). 4.5) According to Uncertainly Reduction Theory, relationship repair theories can be divided into four strategies; Passive strategy – This involves giving each other space and time to think the situation through; Interactive strategy deals with an honest confrontation and confession with the partner about the misunderstandings and troubles; Active strategy involves indirect contact with the partner such as exchange of gifts, messages through friends etc; and lastly, Uncertainty acceptance; where the situation is accepted by ignoring it and avoiding the problems by dating others etc. (Weinrib, L. 2005, p.208-209). References Darling, N. et al. (2000) When Parents and Adolescents disagree: Disclosure strategies and motivations. Society for Research in Adolescence Journals, 23 (1), p.1-10 Family.jrank.org (1982) Relationship Dissolution - Ducks Model - Family, History, People, and Partner - JRank Articles. Accessed: 8 Jun 2012: IvoryMelodies (2012) The Balance of Friendship. Accessed: 8 Jun 2012: Lewis, M. and Neighbors, C. (2005) Self-Determination and the Use of Self-Presentation Strategies. The Journal of Social Psychology, 145 (4), p.470 Menzies, H. et al. (2009) Self-Monitoring Strategies for Use in the Classroom: A Promising Practice to Support Productive Behavior for Students With Emotional or Behavioral Disorders . Beyond Behavior, 14 (1), p.2-6 Miller, D. and Ross, M. (1975) Self-Serving Biases in the Attribution of Causality: Fact or Fiction? .Psychological Bulletin, 82 (2), p.213 – 225 Sheppard, E. (2009) Attribution II: Biases. Individual in Society, 81 (1), p.2-8 Virtual Psychology. Co (2010) Theories of Attraction & The Formation of Relationships.. Journal of Psychology, 61 (4), p.2-11 Weinrib, L. (2005) Reconstructing Family: Constructive Trust at Relational Dissolution. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, 37 (3), p.208-209 White, P. (1990) Ideas about Causation in Psychology and Philosophy. Psychological Bulletin, 108 (1), p.3-7. Bibliography: Gopnik and Schulz (2010) Causal Learning. Oxford Scholarship Online, p.23-57 Hogg, M. and Vaughan, G. (2005) Social psychology. 4th ed. Prentice Hall, p.432-450 Olschewski, G. and Berlin, L. (2009) Rationality in Social Interactions. Logos Verlag Berlin GmbH, p.52-87 Weiten, W. and Dunn, D. (2011) Psychology Applied to Modern Life: Adjustment in the 21st Century. Cengage Learning, p.25-101 Read More