Discuss the errors in attributions Attribution theory is a socio-cultural analysis that defines reasons for phenomenon by the use

of either situational or dispositional factors. Situational is where the rationale behind an action is explained with regards to the environment and situation it occurred in, it is often a less personal affiliation and does not reflect the self. Dispositional is the opposite, reason due to personal character and traits of the self. The two main errors in attribution are the Fundamental Attribution Error and the Self-Serving Bias, in which the attribution theory is further analyzed. The Fundamental Attribution Error (FAE) can be explained where dispositional factors are predominantly used to describe reasons why, either positive or negative, things occur. The situational factors are not taken into account, and when criticizing, people may refer to the characters personality in disdain, rather than stopping before coming to conclusions and considering the situational factors that may effect the situation. However, in the explanation of Fundamental Attribution Error, this judge of character does not reflect on how we judge our self; an idiosyncratic and possibly more generous approach is taken in selfcriticism and situational factor are principally used. The disparity between the two approaches is what makes the FAE so dangerous, and is sometimes referred to as the actor-observer bias. This is where we have the capacity to know and utilize our situational factors, as we have experience them and find them to be an effect, yet lack the ability or desire to notice that as we are all humans, other people will also have situational constrains that may have effected their behaviors. This theory of FAE is an error that many people are aware of, the lack of ethical ways is which we treat people is the automatic response of judgment. Treating people the way we treat ourselves is not first nature to humans, and making it first nature is often tough. Even though this is a widespread theory and many people know about it, few react appropriately and change their way of thinking to accommodate other peoples situational factors that may have manipulated their behavior. Hence the reason Lee Ross coined this theory the fundamental, the most basic yet hard to overcome error of attribution. Lee et al. (1977) carried out a laboratory experiment where, by the flip of a coin, gave a group of people the role of a game show host, contestant, or member. He then used the audience members to analyze and attribute traits of intelligence to both the host and the contestants after the experiment had concluded. Despite knowing that each character had been chosen by random, the audience still accredited the host as being more intelligent, and gave the contestants varying levels of intellect based on the performance they had been told to play. This proved not only that people attribute other people traits about their personality and completely disregard situational factors (randomly being assigned a personality to posses with dissimilar levels of intelligence), but this trait is so innate that even in the instance where we know the roles were predisposed, we still cannot break the instinctive judge of character based on dispositional factors. Despite the irrefutable results, some analysis must be made on the fact

Elizabeth Widder 11MTu

that the participants were all students, and, as students are so used to seeing the person posing and answering the questions as an authority figure, such as a professor, therefore possibly clouding their verdict as influenced rather than an error in judgment. Although this can be argued, when asked to describe actors, ones response often matches the character they have been paid to play, whether it is one of charm and intellect, or that of a sleazy and corrupt businessman. Earlier in 1967 Jones and Harris conducted a similar laboratory experiment where students were made to rate essays written by fellow student either for or against Fidel Castro. Students were aware that sides were pre-picked for the students and those writing in support of Castro did not actually believe what they were saying, yet were still believed and later rumored to be avid supporters of Castro. This experiment, like the game show study were both performed in a laboratory which lacks ecological validity as the participants are aware of what the study is observing hence behavior could be manipulated by this knowledge. Opposing to the FAE, self-serving bias is an error is attribution of traits towards oneself. It is an attribution of positive factors to own personal and internal self, and attributing negative to external and situational factors. Lau and Russel (1980) analyzed 33 sports articles from 1977 reporting on both wins and losses. Attributions of dispositional factors were looked for in the articles of team winning such as because the players were in shape, talent and ability, and effort. The articles broadcasting on teams that had lost we found to blame external factors such as bad reffing, weather, injuries and fouls. Although the reporters and coaches quotes in the articles had not given consent to be analyzed, it made this study have more ecological validity as there is no chance of warped commentary because they were unaware they would be used in a psychological study. The main limitations of this study were that it lacked range; it was only explored over male athletes and teams, and was only performed on Americans. Cultural norms or female behavior, if tested, may have altered the conclusion or provided contrasting data. Self-serving bias is closely related to the concept of self-handicapping. This is where an individual creates external factors that can be manipulated to be an exit strategy if the task fails of the individual does not succeed. Ferrari and Tice looked into the self-handicapping related to procrastination and how it interlinks with the self-serving bias. They found that those who were chronic procrastinators were those who were the ones self-handicapping and therefore the ones using situational factors to accommodate for their mishaps. Although both errors were not tested in studies on a large enough scale to conclude the results to be a representation of the world wide behavioral norm, they both produced results ultimately supporting both the fundamental attribution theory and self-serving bias. The results are conclusive enough for their respective areas and conclude that the theories are indeed more true than false; we tend to attributes others mistakes to dispositional traits due to our lack of knowledge of them, and to our self we attribute situational reasons to our failures and downfalls, yet when we excel we attribute it to our dispositional self.

Elizabeth Widder 11MTu