Discuss two errors in attributions
The fundamental attribution error (FAE)
A theory by Ross (1977)
FAE occurs when people overestimate personality traits (dispositional factors) and underestimate environmental factors (situational 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 sometimes never consider - the power of situations.
- It makes life more predictable if people's behaviour is mainly caused by their personality. This gives the impression that people are understandable and easy to deal with.
- Explanations based solely on personality are incomplete. It would be wrong not to consider the power of situation.
FAE occurs when people overestimate personality traits (dispositional factors) and underestimate environmental factors (situational 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 sometimes never consider - the power of situations.
- It makes life more predictable if people's behaviour is mainly caused by their personality. This gives the impression that people are understandable and easy 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) Empirical research on FAE
Aim: The aim was to investigate whether knowledge of allocated social roles in a quiz show would affect participants' judgement 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 experiment condition 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 because the contestants and the observers attributed the questioners' ability to answer the questions to dispositional factors and failed to take considerations 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 set-up was ingenious. It clearly gave the opportunity to demonstrate attributional biases because the questioners made up their won questions and this was known 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 raised.
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 experiment condition 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 because the contestants and the observers attributed the questioners' ability to answer the questions to dispositional factors and failed to take considerations 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 set-up was ingenious. It clearly gave the opportunity to demonstrate attributional biases because the questioners made up their won questions and this was known 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 raised.
Strengths of FAE
- The theory has promoted understanding of common errors in explanation of what happens in the world.
- The theory has proven very robust and has been supported by many research and studies. |
Limitations of FAE
- The theory is culturally biased with too much focus on individualism.
- Much research on the theory has been conducted in laboratories and with a student sample (problems with generalization of findings). |
Cultural Bias in the FAE
Culture seems to be 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 action leads to dispositional attributions. The individual is seen as the main cause of success and failure.
Study that supports cultural bias in the FAE:
Norenzayan et al. (2002) tested whether information given to Korean 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 much more than the Americans did. This indicates that there may be universal features in the FAE and that available information influences attributions.
- 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 action leads to dispositional attributions. The individual is seen as the main cause of success and failure.
Study that supports cultural bias in the FAE:
Norenzayan et al. (2002) tested whether information given to Korean 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 much more than the Americans did. This indicates that there may be universal features in the FAE and that available information influences attributions.
The self-serving bias (SSB)
The SSB, or self-enhancing strategy, theory refers to people's tendency to evaluate themselves positively by taking credit for their success. For example, I am intelligent therefore I'm right. And attribute their failures to situational factors. For example, the teacher is not competent.
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.
Why do people do this?
- The SSB could be a way to up hold self-esteem (self-protection). 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 (this was proven by Miller and Ross in 1975).
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.
Why do people do this?
- The SSB could be a way to up hold self-esteem (self-protection). 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 (this was proven by Miller and Ross in 1975).
Empirical Researches for SSB
Lau and Russel (1980)Lau and Russel found that American football coaches and players were more likely to attribute success to dispositional factors (for example, talent and hard work) and failure to situational factors (for example, injuries or bad weather, etc).
|
Posey and Smith (2003)Posey and Smith performed an SSB experiment with children. They were asked to do maths problems, siting 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 jo. 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-friend were more likely to demonstrate SSB.
|
Strengths and Limitations of SSB
Strengths of SSBThe theory can explain why some people (mostly from individualistic cultures) explain their failures as being caused by situational factors.
|
Limitations of SSBThe theory is culturally biased. It can not be explain with some cultures emphasize a self-effacing attribution (modestly bias).
|