The interpretation and explanation of causal relationships in the social world, assigning an outcome to external factors, is known as attribution. Two types of errors that occur in attribution are the fundamental attribution error and the self-serving bias.
The fundamental attribution error happens when individuals attribute behavior to dispositional factors and underestimate the impact of situational factors. It occurs when people make assumptions about others’ behavior based on observation. These assumptions often focus on dispositional factors, such as labeling someone as evil for hitting another person without considering situational factors like self-defense.
An example of the fundamental attribution error is illustrated in a study conducted by Ross et al. (1977), which involved participants assigned different roles: game show host, game show contestant, or audience member. The study aimed to examine if participants would commit the fundamental attribution error by overestimating dispositional factors and underestimating situational factors. It’s important to note that all participants were aware they were playing a role in the experiment. The study findings revealed that observers consistently ranked the game show hosts as the most intelligent when asked to rank participants based on intelligence, despite knowing these hosts were randomly assigned their roles and created their own questions.
The observers ascribed the individual’s performance to dispositional factors, specifically intelligence, rather than situational factors. The situation in this case was that the hosts were allowed to create and pose their own questions. While this study supported the attribution error, it had its limitations. For instance, all participants were college students who were accustomed to listening to their professors throughout the day. The participants perceived their professors as authoritative figures who typically ask questions and provide answers. This familiarity might have influenced how they perceived the situation, assuming that the questioner is usually the most intelligent person. Additionally, the study mainly consisted of young adults in terms of sample size, which raises concerns regarding generalizing these findings to a larger population.
The Jones and Harris et al. (1967) study exemplifies the Fundamental Attribution error, as it aimed to showcase this error by having university students evaluate essays on Fidel Castro that either supported or criticized him. The participants were informed that the authors of the essays either chose their stance freely or had it decided by a coin toss. Despite being influenced by the situation, participants consistently gave higher ratings to those who wrote in favor of Castro, attributing their behavior to dispositional factors. It is important to acknowledge that this study may lack ecological validity and have an ethnocentric perspective.
According to Greenberg et al. (1982), the self-serving bias is when individuals attribute their successes to dispositional factors and distance themselves from failures by attributing them to situational factors. This bias serves as a way for individuals to protect themselves and maintain their self-esteem. When individuals achieve success, they often boost their self-esteem by attributing it to dispositional factors. For example, if a student does well on a test, they may say, “I studied so hard,” even if the test was easy. This allows them to feel like they have accomplished something through their own efforts. Conversely, when someone performs poorly in something, they can protect their self-esteem by blaming situational factors for their failure.
When a student fails a test, it is often typical to attribute the blame to external factors like the difficulty of the test or insufficient teaching. This strategy safeguards the student’s self-esteem by evading placing accountability on their own lack of effort. However, this theory has its constraints as there are instances when what the individual asserts holds some truth. It is not always feasible to be completely accurate. For instance, if a student does poorly on a test, they might have studied diligently but still failed due to an exceptionally challenging exam. In such situations, their failure can be attributed to circumstances rather than their own lack of effort.
Johnson et al. (1964) conducted an experiment to support the idea of the self-serving bias. The study involved psychology students interacting with two children through a one-sided intercom in order to teach them multiplication. It consisted of two phases: In the first phase, child A performed well, while in the second phase, child B either consistently underperformed or showed improvement after initial failure.
The results of this experiment showed that when child B improved, the participants credited their own teaching abilities for the success; however, when child B struggled, they blamed it on the child’s inherent learning capabilities. This experiment effectively demonstrates how individuals tend to attribute success to themselves (dispositional), but attribute failures to external factors (situational), thus illustrating the self-serving bias.
In a study conducted in 1980 by Lau and Russell et al., another example of the self-serving bias is demonstrated. The study aimed to investigate whether individuals, including coaches, athletes, and sports journalists, display a self-serving bias. To do this, the researchers examined articles from eight different newspapers that covered thirty-three major baseball and football events in 1997. Their goal was to identify any indications of the self-serving bias by analyzing direct quotes from the subjects regarding their reasons for success or failure. A total of one hundred and seven articles were analyzed by a group of undergraduate professionals.
The study revealed that more than 74% of the winning teams attributed their success to dispositional factors. According to Lau and Russell, this suggests that Americans tend to credit their achievements to internal factors while blaming external factors for failures. Moreover, individuals involved in sports (such as coaches and players) are more likely to acknowledge positive outcomes compared to those not involved (like sportswriters). However, it is important to note that this study solely included American participants, so generalizing the findings may be inaccurate due to cultural differences (lack of cultural validity). Additionally, the study exclusively focused on two sports. On the contrary, the study’s strengths lie in its ecological validity as it utilized real-world settings and successfully achieved its objective. Furthermore, culture impacts self-serving bias with Western cultures exhibiting a greater inclination towards it compared to Asian cultures where self-esteem often stems from group identity rather than individual accomplishments.
Here is an instance where cultural factors, specifically the self-serving bias, influenced attribution: The research by Kashima and Triandis et al. (1986) focused on students from the United States and Japan. Participants were shown unfamiliar country images and asked to recall details about them. American students tended to attribute their success to personal qualities, while Japanese students attributed their failures to personal qualities. The Americans’ behavior was influenced by the self-serving bias, whereas the Japanese students’ behavior was influenced by the modesty bias. This study indicates that cultural influences can shape biases in attribution. However, the study had limited ecological validity as it was highly artificial.
