fundamental attribution error actor observer bias

FUNDAMENTAL ATTRIBUTION ERROR ACTOR OBSERVER BIAS MOVIE

The observers committed the fundamental attribution error and did not sufficiently take the quizmaster’s situational advantage into account.Īs we have explored in many places in this book, the culture that we live in has a significant impact on the way we think about and perceive our social worlds. The difference was not at all due to person factors but completely to the situation: Joe got to use his own personal store of esoteric knowledge to create the most difficult questions he could think of. You can imagine that Joe just seemed to be really smart to the students after all, he knew all the answers, whereas Stan knew only one of the five. Rather, the students rated Joe as significantly more intelligent than Stan. But did the participants realize that the situation was the cause of the outcomes? They did not. As a result, the questions are hard for the contestant to answer. Joe, the quizmaster, has a huge advantage because he got to choose the questions.

If you think about the setup here, you’ll notice that the professor has created a situation that can have a big influence on the outcomes.

After reading the story, the students were asked to indicate their impression of both Stan’s and Joe’s intelligence.

FUNDAMENTAL ATTRIBUTION ERROR ACTOR OBSERVER BIAS MOVIE

The only movie cowboy that pops to mind for me is John Wayne.” Joe asked four additional questions, and Stan was described as answering only one of the five questions correctly. For example, Joe asked, “What cowboy movie actor’s sidekick is Smiley Burnette?” Stan looked puzzled and finally replied, “I really don’t know. Joe (the quizmaster) subsequently posed his questions to the other student (Stan, the contestant). The quizmaster was asked to generate five questions from his idiosyncratic knowledge, with the stipulation that he knew the correct answer to all five questions. The students were described as having been randomly assigned to the role of either quizmaster or contestant by drawing straws. This error is very closely related to another attributional tendency, the correspondence bias, which occurs when we attribute behaviors to people’s internal characteristics, even in heavily constrained situations. In one demonstration of the fundamental attribution error, Linda Skitka and her colleagues (Skitka, Mullen, Griffin, Hutchinson, & Chamberlin, 2002) had participants read a brief story about a professor who had selected two student volunteers to come up in front of a class to participate in a trivia game. When we tend to overestimate the role of person factors and overlook the impact of situations, we are making a mistake that social psychologists have termed the fundamental attribution error.

That is, we are more likely to say “Cejay left a big tip, so he must be generous” than “Cejay left a big tip, but perhaps that was because he was trying to impress his friends.” Second, we also tend to make more personal attributions about the behavior of others (we tend to say, “Cejay is a generous person”) than we do for ourselves (we tend to say, “I am generous in some situations but not in others”). First, we are too likely to make strong personal attributions to account for the behavior that we observe others engaging in. This is a classic example of the general human tendency of underestimating how important the social situation really is in determining behavior. One way that our attributions may be biased is that we are often too quick to attribute the behavior of other people to something personal about them rather than to something about their situation.

Fundamental attribution error actor observer bias