4.3 Discuss two errors in attribution

4.3 Discuss two errors in attribution

The fundamental attribution error (FAE) occurs when people overestimate personality traits (dispositional factors) and underestimate environmental factors when they explain other people’s behaviour. According to social psychologist Fiske (2004), people rely too much on personality in explaining behaviour and they underestimate - or never consider - the power of situations. In Western societies it could be because of the ideology that people get what they deserve (Gilbert 1995). It makes life more predictable if people’s behaviour is mainly caused by their personality. This gives the impression that people are understandable and easily to deal with. Explanations based solely on personality are incomplete. It would be wrong not to consider the power of situation.

Ross, Amabile, and Steinmetz (1977)

Aim: To investigate whether knowledge of allocated social roles in a quiz show would affect participants’ judgements of people’s expertise.

Procedure: Eighteen pairs of students from an introductory class at Stanford University participated in a simulated quiz game where they were randomly assigned to the roles of either questioner or contestant. In the experimental conditions, the role of the questioner or contestant was randomly allocated to one person in each pair. Twenty-four observers watched the quiz. The questioners were asked to compose 10 questions based on their own knowledge and the contestants were asked to answer these questions. The questioner was instructed to ask each question and then wait around 30 seconds for a response. If the contestants did not answer correctly, the questioner gave the correct answer. After the quiz, all participants and the observers were asked to rate “general knowledge” of contestants and questioners.

Results: The contestants consistently rated the general knowledge of the questioners in the experimental condition as superior. The observers did the same. This was a clear demonstration of the FAE. The contestants and the observers attributed the questioners’ ability to answer the questions to dispositional factors and failed to take into consideration the situational factors that gave the questioners an advantage. The questioners themselves did not rate their own knowledge as being superior to that of the contestants.

Evaluation: The experimental setup was ingenious. It clearly gave the opportunity to demonstrate attributional biases because the questioners made up their own questions and this was known by all participants. The participants were university students so there may be sampling bias and it is difficult to generalize the results. The issue of ecological validity could also be railed.

Empirical research

Suedfeld (2003) investigated attributions made by Holocaust survivors. The researcher gave questionnaires to members of Holocaust survivor groups and age-matched Jewish participants who had not personally experienced the Nazi persecution (control). The two groups were asked for their views on possible factors in survival during the Holocaust. 91% of the survivors made situational attributions (e.g. luck and help from others) compared to 51% in the control group. Only 34% of the survivors made dispositional attributions (e.g. psychological strengths and determination) compared to 71% in the control group. This indicates that personal experiences during the Holocaust influenced survivors’ attributions because they had witnessed that it was actually often luck or help from others that determined who survived and who didn’t. The survivors had a clear picture of the power of the situation during the Holocaust.

Lau and Russel (1980) found that American football coaches and players were more likely to attribute success to dispositional factors (e.g. talent or hard work) and failure to situational factors (e.g. injuries or bad weather).

Posey and Smith (2003) performed an SSB experiment with children. They were asked to do maths problems, sitting either with a friend or a non-friend. Although they sat in pairs the children had to do the maths problems alone, but the total score of the pair was noted. After the test the children were asked who did the better job. The results showed that children who worked with friends and failed were less likely to show the SSB and more likely to give their friends credit when they succeeded. Children who worked with a non-friends were more likely to demonstrate the SSB.

Cultural bias in the FAE

Culture seems to be a determinant in attribution style. In collectivist cultures, the emphasis is on the primary social relationships of an individual (family, social role, cultural activities). In individualistic cultures, the emphasis on the individual as the primary cause of actions leads to dispositional attributions. The individual is seen as the main cause of success and failure.

Norenzayan et al. (2002) tested whether information given to Korean and American participants would influence their attributions. When participants only received information about individuals, both groups made dispositional attributions. When situational information was also provided, the Koreans tended to include this information in their explanations such more than the Americans did. This indicates that there may be universal features in the FAE and that available information influences attributions.

Strengths of the FAE	Limitations of the FAE
The theory has promoted understanding of common errors in explanation of what happens in the world.	The theory is culturally biased with too much focus on individualism.
The theory has proven very robust and has been supported by many research studies.	Much research on the theory has been conducted in laboratories and with a student sample (problems with generalization of findings).

The self-serving bias (SSB)

The SSB (i.e. a self-enhancing strategy) refers to people’s tendency to evaluate themselves positively by taking credit for their success and attribute their failures to situational factors. A special version of the SSB is called “self-handicapping”. For example, students who expect to fail an exam can openly make situational attributions before the exam by saying that they have hangovers or that they haven’t slept the whole night.

Possible explanations

The SSB could be a way to uphold self-esteem. People see themselves as responsible for success but not for their failures because they want to see themselves in this way. Others have suggested that the SSB occurs when people don’t have enough information and limit themselves to the available information. People typically expect to succeed and correlate success with their own effort and exaggerate the amount of control they have (Miller and Ross, 1975).

Cultural considerations in the SSB

Culture-specific attributional styles may be a natural part of enculturation and socialization. Some argue that the SSB is primarily linked to individualist cultures but others believe it can be found in both individualistic and collectivist cultures.

Kashima and Triandis (1986) showed slides from unfamiliar countries to American and Japanese students and asked them to remember details. When the students were asked to explain their performance, the Americans explained their own success with internal factors, such as ability,  and failure with external factors. The Japanese tended to explain their failure with lack of ability. This is called the modesty bias and is a cultural variation of the SSB.

Bond, Leung, and Wan (1982) argued that a possible explanation for the modesty bias in collectivist cultures could be a cultural norm in Chinese societies to maintain harmonious personal relationships. A person who makes self-effacing attributions could expect to be liked better.

Strengths of the SSB	Limitations of the SSB
The theory can explain why some people (mostly from individualist cultures) explain their failures as being caused by situational factors.	The theory is culturally biased. It cannot explain wh some cultures emphasize a self-effacing attribution (modesty bias).