Social Cognition Series: Attributional Biases
Foreword
The “Social Cognition” series serves as an exemplary model for our endeavor in the realm of social cognition within the field of experimental psychology. This series aspires to delve deeply into the cognitive mechanisms that underpin our perceptions and understanding of individuals in social contexts, encompassing the intricate dynamics of self-awareness. As we explore these mechanisms, we'll gain insights into how these cognitive processes can sometimes lead to stereotyping and, crucially, how to effectively prevent such biases from taking root. Just as the "ollection imparts invaluable knowledge and practical strategies, our journey through social cognition promises to unlock the transformative potential of knowledge and personal growth in the context of understanding and interacting with others. This series is divided into eight articles including:
5. Attributional Biases
6. Affect Misattribution Procedure (AMP)
7. Heuristics & Shortcuts
8. Stereotyping: Cognition & Biases
Social Cognition Series: Attributional Biases
Interpretation is something we use in our day-to-day lives in an attempt to explain what we perceive from others or the events that have occurred. This need for learning is a core feature of human thinking and behaving, referred to as attribution. Causal attribution can be defined as the way through which individuals try to logic or reason the causes of events or other behaviors. It is a key part of social perception through which people learn to analyze their behavior and that of others, which determines reactions and social interactions. Nevertheless, this process is not free from any flaws. Over the years several researchers have noted that attributions are usually biased, which in turn cause systematic distortion of judgments and perceptions. This essay synthesizes knowledge about attributional biases, details the processes by which they work, and the roles the mechanisms play in social interactions.
The idea of causal attribution has its origins in human instincts striving to understand causality and surroundings. It is an innate concept of human beings to seek for causes of every incident that occurs or phenomena that happen in the world. This is not just the case in terms of scholarly interest, but the need to make sense of how and why one goes about conducting their life. Thus the process of assigning some levels of causality to behaviors and their consequences helps create the order of things and this creates ways of transformation for the next happening. This cognitive process enables one to interact with the external environment in a manner that is functional and solves certain problems.
However, such causal attributions are not always faultless including being subjective in most cases. It is noteworthy that our ideas about the causes of certain phenomena are often biased by certain psychological tendencies, which makes it difficult to grasp the actual relationships between phenomena and outcomes. These biases are generally pre-attitudinal or implicit, which makes people fail to notice them whenever they are in the process of using them. They stem from those mental models or heuristics that a human mind applies when trying to decide on the essence of cause-and-effect relationships. Although these heuristics are applicable in different circumstances, they give systematic mistakes.
Fundamental Attribution Error
One of the simplest and easiest to detect biases includes the tendency to over-attribute another person’s behavior to his/her character or personality; this is known as the fundamental attributed error or correspondence bias. This is a distortion of the level of how much one is willing to change and adapt to social norms or pressures, and from the observer’s perspective, the behavior is seen as the person’s character traits and predispositions.
The major cause of the fundamental attribution error includes the fact that behavior crowds out other aspects and becomes the main focus when observed by a person. When another person is being watched, he or she leads the visual scene due to the actions and movements while the background factors are usually subtle. Therefore, the person’s characteristics are overemphasized to be the cause of their behavior because of a perceiver’s prejudice (Taylor & Fiske, 1975). However, this bias in favor of dispositional attributions is not solely the result of the perceptual experience. For example, the fundamental attribution error is also witnessed when people give written accounts of others’ behaviors where behavior is not the prominent feature (Winter & Uleman, 1984). More research against the perceptual account includes the fact that as kids grow, they become even more inclined to explain behavior in terms of temperament (Rodes, Jones & Wade 1988), and also the fact that the extremity of FAE in predicting behavior at a later time is also higher (Nussbaum et al., 2003). Thus, the fundamental attribution error is been made equally well in both the auditory and the visual domain.
However, the fundamental attribution error is not general and situation-sensitive. McAdich & Meara’s research showed that the combination of behaviors and dispositions is domain-specific. For instance, the friendly actions we perform are usually directly related to friendly personality (the friendlier a person is, the friendlier they are seen to be). On the other hand, the moral behaviors are not as easy to pinpoint and they do not have such a definite boundary as the mutual glances have. Isole behavioral illegal act suggests a great deal about overall dishonesty, while a single honest act tells virtually nothing, because, as Reeder and Brewer have noted, most people including the generally dishonest, are honest most of the time. As for the development of understanding how behavior in different spheres is connected with disposition, it occurs through experience.
Despite general evidence for the fundamental attribution error, it does not apply uniformly across all the circumstances. People assume that there is more to the individual’s actions than what may initially meet the eye, and therefore, in an attempt to assign a dispositional attitude to someone, he or she takes into account other provoking factors. However, the situation that makes people cognitively busy leads them to rely mostly on the observable characteristics of stimuli and ignore contextual characteristics, which produce more dispositional attributions.
Mood also plays a significant role in making dispositional attributions as they are more frequent when the person is in a good mood; however, less likely when people accept the responsibility for their judgment and also when people doubt other motives behind someone’s actions. For instance, as soon as one sees a celebrity holding or using a particular product, the natural reaction is to immediately conclude that the celebrity is paid to use the product. Besides, when it comes to matters that have outcomes depending on another person, there is the motivation to be precise, which in turn, leads to more careful processing and more focus on dispositional attributions.
Separately, self-serving bias appears to be a significant influence when considering others’ behavior in a situation, especially insofar as these others are familiar to us. Understanding leads to the inclusion of additional characteristics, such as a target person’s goals or values, and the exclusion of broad-based strokes when designing an impression. With more information about a person, the situational factors are progressively taken into account as determinants of the behavior. Thus, the relevance of the fundamental attribution error is anchored to the seemingly inadequate consideration of crucial situational cues while perceiving other people’s essence. However, this error is not a negative trait, although it has a negative name, ‘negative affectivity’. Thus, people making dispositional attributions may not expect their judgments to mean that the other person will always act the same, as researchers might assume. They look for what is referred to as circumscribed accuracy, inquiring if the person would do it again if placed in the same position. One, dispositional attributions give a forecast of how the other will behave in the same or similar circumstances, which situational attributions do not. Therefore, such attributions enable one to make proper forecasts in certain contexts, allowing for assertive anticipation of individuals’ actions in similar conditions.
Cultural Limitations on the Fundamental Attribution Error
The fundamental attribution error, a pervasive cognitive bias, is not universally experienced across all cultures. It tends to be more pronounced in Western cultures compared to non-Western cultures, particularly East Asian societies. This discrepancy highlights the significant role that cultural context plays in shaping cognitive processes and social perceptions. In East Asian countries, there is a greater tendency to recognize and account for the influence of situational factors on behavior. This cultural difference in attributional tendencies can be attributed to various underlying social and cognitive factors that distinguish Western and East Asian ways of thinking.
In Western cultures, people often emphasize individual autonomy and personal responsibility. This cultural orientation leads to a stronger inclination to attribute behavior to internal, dispositional factors. For example, when observing someone’s behavior, Westerners are more likely to conclude that it reflects the person's inherent traits, such as their personality or character, rather than external circumstances. This tendency persists even when situational factors are clearly present and relevant. The fundamental attribution error in Western contexts is mitigated only when individuals are given additional time, attention, or motivation to consider situational information, suggesting that their default mode of thinking prioritizes dispositional explanations.
In contrast, East Asian cultures are more collectivist and interdependent. People in these societies are more attuned to the social context and the roles of situational forces as causes of behavior. This cultural orientation fosters an automatic consideration of situational information when making attributions. For East Asians, the process of correcting for situational influences is not an effortful or deliberate one, but rather an ingrained aspect of their cognitive processing. This automatic correction for situational factors can be linked to the broader cultural values of harmony and interconnectedness, which emphasize the importance of context and relationships in shaping behavior.
One reason for these cultural differences in attributional tendencies may be the varying degrees of interdependence and social norms in East Asian versus Western cultures. In East Asian societies, individuals are more likely to adjust their behavior to align with situational norms and expectations. This cultural practice reinforces the perception that behavior is heavily influenced by external factors, leading to a more contextually sensitive approach to causal attribution. East Asians' consideration of context when interpreting behavior reflects the cultural reality that behavior is often guided by situational norms and relational dynamics.
By contrast, Western cultures prioritize independence and self-expression. Individuals in these societies feel less compelled to conform to situational pressures and are more likely to demonstrate behavior that is consistent with their personal dispositions. This cultural emphasis on individualism and self-reliance supports the notion that behavior is a direct reflection of one’s internal traits. Consequently, Western social perceivers may feel more justified in making dispositional attributions, as their cultural environment provides ample instances of behavior that seemingly stems from personal qualities rather than situational constraints.
Beyond these cultural practices, the fundamental differences in cognitive styles between Western and East Asian cultures also play a crucial role in shaping attributional biases. East Asians tend to adopt a more holistic and complex approach to understanding the world. Their cognitive style involves considering a broader range of information and recognizing the interconnections between various elements of a situation. This holistic thinking leads to more nuanced and contextually informed attributions, as East Asians are more likely to integrate multiple sources of information before drawing conclusions about the causes of behavior.
In contrast, Westerners often exhibit a more analytical cognitive style, focusing on individual elements rather than the whole. This approach tends to isolate behavior from its broader context, leading to stronger dispositional attributions. The analytical style prevalent in Western cultures encourages a linear and straightforward interpretation of behavior, where the emphasis is placed on identifying distinct causes and effects. This cognitive preference aligns with the cultural values of autonomy and individual responsibility, reinforcing the tendency to attribute behavior to internal traits.
These cultural differences in attributional biases have significant implications for cross-cultural interactions and understanding. Misunderstandings and misinterpretations can arise when individuals from different cultural backgrounds apply their distinct attributional tendencies to interpret each other’s behavior. For instance, a Western observer might misjudge an East Asian individual’s behavior as reflecting their personality, while the East Asian individual might view the same behavior as a response to situational demands. Such discrepancies in attribution can lead to conflicts and communication barriers, underscoring the importance of cultural awareness in fostering effective intercultural relationships.
Moreover, recognizing the cultural limitations on the fundamental attribution error can enhance our understanding of human cognition and social behavior. It highlights the flexibility and variability of cognitive processes, demonstrating that our ways of interpreting behavior are not universally fixed but are shaped by cultural contexts and social environments. This awareness can promote a more inclusive and comprehensive approach to studying social cognition, encouraging researchers to consider cultural diversity when examining psychological phenomena.
In conclusion, the fundamental attribution error is a cognitive bias that varies significantly across cultures. Western cultures, with their emphasis on individualism and personal responsibility, exhibit a stronger tendency toward dispositional attributions. In contrast, East Asian cultures, which prioritize interdependence and contextual sensitivity, automatically consider situational factors when interpreting behavior. These differences are rooted in the distinct cultural values and cognitive styles that characterize Western and East Asian societies. Understanding these cultural limitations on the fundamental attribution error can enhance cross-cultural understanding and highlight the importance of cultural context in shaping cognitive processes and social perceptions.
The Actor–Observer Effect
Attribution theory provides evidence regarding the blocks that are related to how people approach the behaviors and account for them; this is especially the case when people are accounting for themselves as compared to experiencing others. Thus, whilst in the case of having met unfriendly store clerks people tend to evaluate the behavior as dispositional, labeling it as ‘hostile’ or ‘unfriendly,’ in the case of remembering the moments when one could be less than friendly, people tend to reason in terms of the situation, for instance, being in a bad mood or otherwise, and do not consider themselves as ‘hostile.’
The actor-observer bias, which has been well documented by E.E. Jones (1972) recounts that individuals make internal dispositional attribution for the actors’ behavior. This influence probably reduces the fundamental attribution error when judging one’s own behavior. However, a meta-analysis of 172 studies by Malle (2006) stipulates that this asymmetry remains persistent when the actor’s behavior is said to be deviant or eccentric especially when evaluated by means of open-ended responses and for hypothetical cases.
People and observers are different from the way the model is; concerning the attribution of behavior. The two crucial findings evidenced in the study of Malle and Knobe (1997) are in the phenomenon of actors dwelling more on implicit and less visible actions as opposed to observers who dwell more on the intended and often, evident actions. Also, people refer to the third-person perspective in some situations even concerning their own behaviors. For example, they may prefer the usage of the typology of ‘traits’ to depict the behaviors more often during the assessment of past or future behaviors as opposed to the current ones. This reversed pattern of the actor-observer effect accentuates the dynamism involved in the processes of self-perception and attribution (Pronin & Ross, 2006).
Further, the very differentiation between person and situation is problematic. This is because while perceiving dispositions and situations, perceivers might do so in a manner where they seem to be interrelated and not independent of each other. For instance, it may be evident that a person is orderly in business or formal surroundings and rowdy or jovial in social or party settings This way, behaviors are relative to a certain environment or context and also can be perceived as such (Kammrath, Mendoza-Denton & Mischel, 2005). These sorts of attributions are far more complex indicating the subtle way in which people reason about causality, thus collapsing person-situation elements (Malle et al., 2000). The details about why people engage in intentional behavior are proterminal, starting with the behavior that is an action, moving to the relevant intentions, reasons, and the past of the reasons.
An important characteristic of the actor-observer effect is the fact that it is present to a greater extent concerning positive or negative behavior. Malle has noted that it is more probable to be evident when describing undesirable actions instead of desirable ones. First, a survey with multiple items for each measurement could be used, for example, in the case of the hostile clerk example, differences in actors and observers could be seen when explaining the behavior as opposed to the disposition of the clerk would be expected. This differential attribution in negative contexts points to the conclusion that the actor-observer effect may be self-serving in nature because subjects can easily explain negative behaviors of other persons as uncontrolled reactions to situations or circumstances as opposed to negative traits.
Therefore, the theory of attribution helps in explaining how people perceive and judge behaviors depending on whether they are concerning self or other individuals. The actor-observer bias highlights the way in which people focus on the dispositional nature of other individuals while explaining one’s own actions in terms of situational factors. However, this gender has been found to apply with some consideration to the perceived uniqueness of the actor’s behavior, the method of assessment, and the valence of the behavior. Furthermore, as it has been said before, in everyday reasoning the difference between person and situation rarely is made indicating the nature of human behavior attribution as interactive and complex.
Self-Serving Attributional Bias
The self-serving attributional bias is another important concept in human behavior research which may be illustrated by people’s discussions after the tennis match. In success, people find it easy to explain it in terms of personal factors like ability or work, while in failure it is easy to blame it on luck or adverse conditions. This was done based on self-serving attributional bias when people tend to claim responsibility for the success and external factors when things go wrong (D.T. Miller & Ross, 1975).
In research studies, various meta-, syntheses revealed that people are more assigned successes in internal factors and failures in external factors too (Arkin, Cooper & Kolditz, 1980). For instance, people tend to attribute victory in tennis, for example, to the fact that they are stronger or wiser than the opponent after a clear victory in a game. On the other hand, after a loss, they may feel that certain conditions like adverse weather caused the loss or equipment failure and not their poor performance.
Self-serving biases are not only applicable to a person’s behavior but also to the way people view their particular groups. For instance, the group-serving bias refers to the fact that members of a specific group will explain positive acts of the group to which they belong as due to the group’s inherent characteristics while negative acts performed by the same group will be attributed to external factors (ingroup bias – outgroup bias) (Pettigrew, 1979). This bias preserves one’s self-esteem and supports the identification of cohesive people by magnifying the positive aspects of the group to which the individual belongs while at the same time overemphasizing the negative aspects of the other groups.
However, it should be understood that self-serving biases imply certain changes in reality only because they perform certain functions. These can be very motivating because success is credited to one’s own hard work and capability. For instance, studies have established that the unemployed with an external locus of control are less positive about the prospect of the next job compared to those with an internal /voluntary temporary job loss locus of control (Schaufeli, 1988). This motivational angle of self-serving bias ensures that the people concerned keep on trying and seek to do better.
Neuroscientific findings also explain the patterns of cognition in relation to self-serving biases. Some brain imaging studies show that the areas associated with goal planning and reward system vernalization are engaged by people who make self-serving attributions (Blackwood et al., 2003). The dorsal premotor cortex is involved in simulating one’s own intentional actions and would be expected to be involved in the processes associated with self-responsibility. On the other hand, the dorsal striatum which has earlier been associated with motivational aspects has differences in activity in relation to the self-serving bias. It is for this reason that the present findings regarding the bias’ neural correlates actually point to the possibility that the bias is not just a cognitive heuristic but also a psychologically satisfying experience.
Thus, the self-serving attributional bias results in the inclination to attribute the outcomes of one’s actions to personal characteristics and the lack of success to other agents and circumstances. To the effectiveness of this bias, such feelings apply not only to the accomplishments of an individual but to the accomplishments of the social groups to which an individual belongs as well. In this respect, the bias contradicts the conventional threat of misinformation interventions and does have its practical usage: it provides motivational purposes, as well as ego-preserving ones. The studies on cognitive, social, and neuroscience of the self-serving bias help to explain actions and perceptions of people regarding results and performance.
The Self-Centered Bias
The self-centered attribution bias, often observed in everyday situations like sharing household chores between roommates, illustrates a common tendency for individuals to overestimate their own contributions relative to others. When asked about their share of the housework, each roommate is likely to believe they contribute more than the other perceives. This bias involves taking more than one's fair share of credit for jointly produced outcomes, a phenomenon well-documented in psychological research.
Several factors contribute to the self-centered attribution bias. Firstly, individuals typically have better awareness and recollection of their own contributions compared to those of others. For instance, one may readily notice and remember the times they are actively engaged in household tasks but may not always be aware or attentive when their roommate is doing their share of the work. This selective attention to one's own actions enhances the perception of personal involvement and contribution. Secondly, there is a psychological benefit to maintaining a positive self-image and self-esteem. Believing that one's contributions are greater than they actually are helps bolster self-worth and reinforces one's identity as a responsible and proactive individual. Each roommate may internalize the idea that they are the type of person who consistently pulls their weight and fulfills their responsibilities more diligently than their roommate.
Moreover, the self-centered bias can be influenced by social comparisons and relational dynamics within the household. People often gauge their contributions based on subjective comparisons with others, particularly those with whom they share responsibilities. In the context of household chores, this bias may lead to perceptions that one is doing more relative to their roommate, especially if there is a lack of clear communication or explicit division of tasks.
This bias extends beyond simple perceptions of housework and can impact various domains of social interaction and cooperation. In collaborative settings, such as group projects or team efforts at work, individuals may similarly overestimate their own contributions while underestimating the contributions of others. This tendency can lead to misunderstandings, conflicts, and disparities in workload perceptions within teams or partnerships. Understanding the self-centered attribution bias involves recognizing its cognitive and social dimensions. From a cognitive perspective, individuals naturally prioritize and recall their own actions more readily, contributing to an inflated sense of personal contribution. Socially, this bias reflects broader tendencies in interpersonal dynamics where individuals may inadvertently minimize the efforts of others while magnifying their own role.
Addressing the self-centered bias requires fostering awareness and perspective-taking skills. Encouraging open communication and transparency about responsibilities can help mitigate misunderstandings and promote more accurate assessments of contributions. Recognizing and valuing the efforts of others, through acknowledgment and appreciation, also plays a crucial role in balancing perceptions of fairness and equity in collaborative endeavors.
In conclusion, the self-centered attribution bias manifests as a tendency for individuals to overestimate their own contributions relative to others in shared tasks or outcomes. Rooted in cognitive processes and social comparisons, this bias highlights the complexity of human perceptions and interactions. By promoting awareness, communication, and mutual appreciation, individuals and groups can mitigate the impact of this bias and foster more harmonious and productive relationships in various settings.
Naive Realism
Naive realism is a cognitive bias that encompasses several self-relevant biases, revolving around the notion that others, especially those who disagree with us, are more prone to bias than we are (Pronin, Gilovich, & Ross, 2004). At its core, naive realism is the belief that we perceive the world as it truly is. Therefore, if others have different perspectives, they must be biased. This bias is fueled by the tendency to place greater trust in our own introspections while dismissing the introspections of others, thereby creating a skewed informational foundation that reinforces our own beliefs. This phenomenon implies that we believe we understand others better than they understand us, leading to what is known as the illusion of asymmetrical insight.
Naive realism significantly impacts the dynamics between conflicting groups and nations. When one's own position appears logical and self-evident, it becomes challenging to comprehend how another group might perceive the world differently (Robinson, Keltner, Ward, & Ross, 1995). This cognitive bias often results in opposing parties exaggerating the differences between their viewpoints, with each side viewing their own stance as more liberal and the other as more conservative (Sherman, Nelson, & Ross, 2003). In situations where a mediator is introduced, each side typically anticipates that the mediator will share their perspective. Consequently, when the mediator remains neutral, both parties are likely to perceive the mediator as biased against them.
Attributions of Responsibility and Defensive Attributions
Attributions of responsibility pertain to determining who or what is accountable for an event, especially those with negative outcomes (Shaver, 1985). This concept is particularly significant when adverse events occur, as they tend to generate a desire to assign blame. Attribution theory suggests that people believe someone should have anticipated the situation, that the person's actions were unjustified, and that the individual had the freedom to act differently. This framework becomes especially apparent in high-stakes situations where the consequences are severe, and the public demands accountability.
For instance, the response to Hurricane Katrina serves as a poignant example of attributions of responsibility. After the hurricane struck in 2005, devastating the city of New Orleans, there was widespread criticism of President George W. Bush's administration for what many perceived as an inadequate response to the disaster. Critics argued that the federal government, under Bush’s leadership, should have been better prepared for such an event. They believed that the administration had the resources and knowledge to foresee the potential impact of the hurricane but failed to act appropriately to mitigate the disaster's effects.
The criticism centered around several key points. First, there was a belief that the administration had sufficient warning about the severity of the hurricane and its potential to cause significant damage. Weather forecasts and emergency management experts had predicted that Hurricane Katrina could lead to catastrophic flooding in New Orleans. Despite these warnings, the federal response was seen as slow and disorganized, leading to unnecessary suffering and loss of life. Second, many felt that the actions taken by the Bush administration were not justified given the circumstances. There were reports of delays in deploying federal aid and coordination issues between different levels of government. This perception of unjustified action further fueled the belief that the administration was at fault. People argued that more proactive measures could have been taken to protect the residents of New Orleans and that the federal government had failed in its duty to provide adequate support in a time of crisis.
Finally, the notion of free choice plays a significant role in attributions of responsibility. In the case of Hurricane Katrina, critics contended that the Bush administration had the ability to choose how to respond to the disaster but made poor decisions. This belief in the administration's free choice to act differently but failing to do so, reinforced the attribution of blame. The perception was that there were alternative courses of action that could have been taken to mitigate the disaster’s impact, but these options were either ignored or inadequately pursued.
Attributions of responsibility are not limited to natural disasters. They can be observed in various contexts, including corporate scandals, political missteps, and everyday interpersonal conflicts. In each case, the same principles apply: people seek to assign blame based on their beliefs about foresight, justification, and free choice. This process is influenced by cognitive biases and social perceptions, which can shape how responsibility is attributed. For example, in corporate settings, a company might be blamed for a product failure if it is believed that the issues could have been anticipated and prevented with better quality control measures. Similarly, political leaders might be held accountable for policy failures if it is perceived that they had the information and means to implement more effective solutions but chose not to.
The implications of attributions of responsibility are far-reaching. They can impact public opinion, influence legal and political outcomes, and shape social dynamics. Understanding how and why people attribute responsibility is crucial for addressing conflicts and developing effective communication strategies. By recognizing the underlying factors that drive attributions of blame, it is possible to foster more nuanced and empathetic responses to adverse events.
In conclusion, attributions of responsibility involve determining accountability for events, especially negative ones, based on beliefs about foresight, justification, and free choice. The response to Hurricane Katrina exemplifies how these attributions can manifest, with widespread criticism of President Bush’s administration for perceived failures in disaster management. Such attributions are prevalent in various contexts and have significant implications for public perception and social outcomes. Understanding these dynamics is essential for addressing blame and fostering more constructive approaches to accountability.
On the other hand, defensive attribution can be described as a psychological trend of blaming more for an action that borders unfavorable/severe consequences as compared to the inconsequential ones. For example, when flooding is relatively small people may not be directing so much blame towards the president. Nevertheless, where the flooding leads to major destruction and receives a lot of media coverage, then the share of people blaming the president will rise.
As a result, multiple genuine studies have been identified by Burger (1981) who provided support to this defensive attribution bias. By elaborating on the central argument, it is possible to indicate that the targets’ defensiveness depends on perceived similarity to the person viewed as being responsible for the negative occurrence. These imply that when people feel a similarity of the self and situation with the offender, they have lower expectations of personal control, hence attributing low responsibility of the person as the magnitude of effects soars high. It is probably used to prevent a situation of self-threat, as people are generally motivated to protect themselves. Conversely, members who perceive themselves as being different from the perpetrator respond by increasing the attribution of responsibility to the perpetrator with the harm rising in severity.
To the majority of individuals, the president is a person unlike themselves; this could be the reason that serious events, for instance, high floods, cause people to direct blame towards the president. The public fails to relate with the high-ranking official and as such, they readily blame the president when confronted with the dreadful realities of disaster’s impact. This tendency is even more so given the fact that major disasters are normally followed by a lot of media coverage thus making the impact to be felt that much nearer and therefore making the responsibility of the president appear to be that much bigger.
Conclusion
Attribution theory explores how a person arrives at a conclusion about the cause of an action and the other individual. The dual-processing model also helps explain one aspect of attributions; some are made automatically and quickly, whereas others need more consideration. People use outlooks that are often based on early childhood education like post hoc ergo propter hoc, where effects are seen as a result of causes because they follow in time, and everything nearby in both time and space is considered to be a cause.
Important theories of causal attribution are Heider’s CP, Jones and Davis’ CIT, Kelley’s AT, Bem’s SPT, Schachter’s ELT, and Weiner’s theories on achievement and helping. However, the theories that stand out in this category are Jones & Davis’s theory and Kelley’s theory as they contain the normative theories on how the attributions should be processed.
In the next studies, the focus has been made on the actual cognitive activities that take place when the individual evaluates the other’s traits. Hasty decisions regarding a person’s behavior are a result of dispositional attributions because people make them without actively thinking, while situational attributions take effort to be made and help rectify first impressions. This secondary process is less likely to occur unless some of the situational information is prominent enough. If people do not have the time or ability to do old initial reconstructions, then situational factors play a minimal role in judgments.
The attribution process is also marked by several stable biases, such as other-blame bias which involves a tendency to make dispositional attributions about others’ behavior, self-serving and self-centered bias, naive realism bias that makes people believe that are right and others are wrong, defensive attribution bias that makes people look for someone else to blame especially when a bad thing happens.
Bibliographical References
Arkin, R., Cooper, H., & Kolditz, T. (1980). A statistical review of the literature concerning the self-serving attribution bias in interpersonal influence situations. Journal of Personality, 48(4), 435–448. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1980.tb02378.x
Blackwood, N., Bentall, R., Ffytche, D., Simmons, A., Murray, R., & Howard, R. (2003). Self-responsibility and the self-serving bias: an fMRI investigation of causal attributions. NeuroImage, 20(2), 1076–1085. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1053-8119(03)00331-8
Burger, J. M. (1981). Motivational biases in the attribution of responsibility for an accident: A meta-analysis of the defensive-attribution hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 90(3), 496–512. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.90.3.496
Jones, E. E. (1987). Attribution: perceiving the causes of behavior. http://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BA01408837
Kammrath, L. K., Mendoza-Denton, R., & Mischel, W. (2005). Incorporating If. . .Then. . .Personality signatures in person perception: beyond the Person-Situation dichotomy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(4), 605–618. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.4.605
Malle, B. F. (2006). The actor-observer asymmetry in attribution: A (surprising) meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 132(6), 895–919. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.6.895
Malle, B. F., & Knobe, J. (1997). Which behaviors do people explain? A basic actor–observer asymmetry. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(2), 288–304. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.2.288
Malle, B. F., Knobe, J., O’Laughlin, M. J., Pearce, G. E., & Nelson, S. E. (2000). Conceptual structure and social functions of behavior explanations: Beyond person–situation attributions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(3), 309–326. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.3.309
Miller, D. T., & Ross, M. (1975). Self-serving biases in the attribution of causality: Fact or fiction? Psychological Bulletin, 82(2), 213–225. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076486
Nussbaum, S., Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003). Creeping dispositionism: The temporal dynamics of behavior prediction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(3), 485–497. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.3.485
Pettigrew, T. F. (1979). The ultimate attribution error: extending Allport’s cognitive analysis of prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5(4), 461–476. https://doi.org/10.1177/014616727900500407
Pronin, E., & Ross, L. (2006). Temporal differences in trait self-ascription: When the self is seen as an other. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(2), 197–209. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.2.197
Pronin, E., Steele, C. M., & Ross, L. (2004). Identity bifurcation in response to stereotype threat: Women and mathematics. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(2), 152–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-1031(03)00088-x
Robinson, R. J., Keltner, D., Ward, A., & Ross, L. (1995). Actual versus assumed differences in construal: “Naive realism” in intergroup perception and conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(3), 404–417. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.68.3.404
Schaufeli, W. B. (1988). Perceiving the causes of unemployment: An evaluation of the Causal Dimensions Scale in a real-life situation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(2), 347–356. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.2.347
Shaver, K. G. (1985). The attribution of blame : causality, responsibility, and blameworthiness. In Springer eBooks. http://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BA01037837
Sherman, D. K., Nelson, L. D., & Ross, L. D. (2003). Naï Realism and Affirmative Action: Adversaries are More Similar Than They Think. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 25(4), 275–289. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp2504_2
Taylor, S. E., & Fiske, S. T. (1975). Point of view and perceptions of causality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(3), 439–445. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0077095
Winter, L., & Uleman, J. S. (1984). When are social judgments made? Evidence for the spontaneousness of trait inferences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(2), 237–252. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.47.2.237
Visual References
Cover Image: Moretti, W. (2017, February 25). Close-Up Photo of Person's Eye [Photograph]. Pexels. https://www.pexels.com/photo/close-up-photo-of-person-s-eye-1925630/
Figure 1: Natividade, S. (2022, 24 January). How to make socialize tips from an introvert [Digital Artwork]. Toucan. https://www.toucan.events/blog/how-to-make-socialize-tips-from-an-introvert Figure 2: Pilat D., & Sekoul D. (2021). Fundamental Attribution Error. The Decision Lab. Retrieved June 30, 2024, from https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/fundamental-attribution-error
Figure 3: Google DeepMind (n.d.) An artist’s illustration of artificial intelligence (AI) [Digital Artwork]. Pexels. https://www.pexels.com/photo/an-artist-s-illustration-of-artificial-intelligence-ai-this-image-depicts-ai-safety-research-to-prevent-the-misuse-and-encourage-beneficial-uses-it-was-created-by-artist-khyati-trehan-17485632/
Figure 4: Gormandy White, M. (2020) Examples of Culture [Digital Artwork]. Yourdictionary. https://www.yourdictionary.com/articles/examples-culture-identify
Figure 5: Miroshnichenko, T. (2020, September 30). Two People Sitting on Wooden Stairs
[Photograph]. Pexels. https://www.pexels.com/photo/two-people-sitting-on-wooden-stairs-5560373/
Figure 6: Monstera Production (2020, July 28). Crop potter with clay in hands [Photograph]. Pexels. https://www.pexels.com/photo/crop-potter-with-clay-in-hands-5302906/
Figure 7: Torobekov, D., (2021, January 3). Contemplative woman with skateboard standing on street and looking away [Photograph]. Pexels. https://www.pexels.com/photo/contemplative-woman-with-skateboard-standing-on-street-and-looking-away-7017752/
Figure 8: Monstera Production (n.d). Cutout paper appliques of sick and healthy human figures [Digital Artwork]. Pexels. https://www.pexels.com/photo/cutout-paper-appliques-of-sick-and-healthy-human-figures-5841972/
Fİgure 9: Pilat, D. & Krastev, S. (n.d.). Why do we blame external factors for our own mistakes? [Digital Artwork]. The Decision Lab. https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/self-serving-bias
Figure 10: Sartori, R. (2019) Self-centered bias: to believe that the world revolves around us [Digital Artwork]. Medium. https://medium.com/@restwoodsartori710/self-centered-bias-to-believe-that-the-world-revolves-around-us-eceeef48d6e0
Figure 11: Moretti, W. (2017, February 25). Close-Up Photo of Person's Eye [Photograph]. Pexels. https://www.pexels.com/photo/close-up-photo-of-person-s-eye-1925630/
Figure 12: RDNE Stock project (n.d.). lack Round Magnifying Glass on White Printer Paper
[Photograph]. Pexels. https://www.pexels.com/photo/lack-round-magnifying-glass-on-white-printer-paper-7948054/
Figure 13: Centre for Ageing Better (2021, August 23). Demonstration of people wearing masks with placards and banners [Photograph]. Pexels. https://www.pexels.com/photo/demonstration-of-people-wearing-masks-with-placards-and-banners-9729879/
Figure 14: Lusina, A. (2020, October 26). Woman with paper with cross sign [Photograph]. Pexels. https://www.pexels.com/photo/woman-with-paper-with-cross-sign-5723269/
The thoroughness of your analysis is truly impressive. nyt zorse game
Your blog never disappoints. Always informative and well-written. URL
Thanks for sharing many good and interesting articles. Join the game papa's freezeria for fun.
Atelier Cocon is more than just a yoga brand; it’s a lifestyle choice. The quality of their products is unparalleled, with every item designed to enhance your practice in the most meaningful way. I’m particularly in love with their eco-friendly materials and the attention to detail in every stitch and seam. Whether it’s their yoga bolsters, mats, or accessories, Atelier Cocon delivers a level of luxury and mindfulness that you can feel with every breath and stretch. It’s clear that this brand is dedicated to supporting your yoga journey with both elegance and purpose.
Playing at the Indonesian casino 1win indonesia , I felt like a part of a large gambling community. The casino offers great conditions for players, including a huge selection of games and generous bonuses. I am very satisfied with the speed of payouts and the quality of customer support. This casino has become not just a place to play, but a real hobby for me. I advise everyone to try their hand at it!