Attribution Theories and Biases
Introduction to Attributions
Definition: Attributions are the explanations we give for behavior or outcomes.
Examples: When observing a crying toddler in a grocery store:
Internal Attribution: "Bad mom, can't control her kid" (blaming the parent's character).
External Attributions: "The kid's just having a toddler moment" (normal developmental stage), "They're hurt" (physical injury), "The kid's angry because something specific happened" (situational trigger), "Frustration over not having agency" (external circumstance like not getting a toy).
Human Tendency: We inherently seek reasons for why things happen, even for trivial events, because knowing "why" is more comfortable than not knowing. Attributions are a natural and automatic cognitive process.
Metaphor: The joke "Why did the chicken cross the road?" is essentially about exploring different attributions for the chicken's behavior.
Broader Application: Attributions are made in various scenarios, such as explaining why someone attacked another person (e.g., offended, awful childhood, bad temperament).
Attribution Theory (Heider, 1958)
Core Idea: Proposed by Heider in 1958, this theory states that attributions are automatic, and we typically make one of two types:
Internal Attributions (Dispositional Attributions):
Definition: Explaining someone's behavior based on who they are as a person, their core characteristics, inherent traits, or disposition (e.g., personal qualities, temperament, stable personality).
Example: Someone gets into a fight because they are an "angry, vengeful, spiteful person" at their core.
External Attributions (Situational Attributions):
Definition: Explaining someone's behavior based on something about the situation or environment, rather than their consistent personal traits. It's contingent on the surroundings and is not stable over time.
Examples: Having a "bad day," lack of sleep, being raised in a particular home environment, reacting to a different group of people, changes like daylight saving time, or being lost in an unknown area.
Biases in Attribution
Self-Serving Bias (Self-Serving Attributions):
Focus: How we explain our own behavior or outcomes.
Mechanism: We make attributions in a way that serves us, giving ourselves the benefit of the doubt, or making us feel better.
Negative Outcomes: When something negative happens to us, we tend to make external attributions.
Example: Failing an exam is attributed to the teacher not teaching well, or not getting enough sleep the night before (situational factors), rather than internal factors like lack of studying.
Positive Outcomes: When something positive happens to us, we tend to make internal attributions.
Example: Acing a test is attributed to being a "really good student," "studious," or "attentive" (consistent personal traits).
Purpose: Acts as a cognitive bias to compensate or make us feel better when bad things happen. It helps mitigate feelings of guilt or failure.
Challenge: It can be difficult to discern when these attributions are genuinely accurate versus when they are merely self-serving.
Correspondence Bias / Fundamental Attribution Error (FAE):
Focus: How we explain other people's behavior or outcomes.
Mechanism: We tend to underestimate environmental or situational factors and overestimate internal or dispositional factors when judging others' behavior, especially negative outcomes.
Example: If someone else fails a test, we attribute it to them being "lazy," "not paying attention," or "not giving enough time" (internal traits), rather than considering external factors they might be facing.
Key Distinction from Self-Serving Bias: We are "less nice" or less charitable when judging others compared to ourselves.
Re-evaluation of FAE: The term "fundamental attribution error" is now less preferred, with "correspondence bias" being used more, because later research showed this bias might not be as universal or "fundamental" as initially thought.
Cultural Influence: People with a collectivist orientation (more group-oriented) are less susceptible to this bias because they are generally more considerate of external (situational) factors and less focused on individual perceptions.
The initial research that coined FAE was largely based on studies of people from individualistic cultures.
Factors Influencing Internal vs. External Attributions
These three factors help us (often unconsciously) determine whether an attribution is internal or external:
Example: Judging why Jacob likes his history class (Is it Jacob, or is it the class?)
1. Consistency:
Definition: Does the person consistently exhibit this behavior or attitude in this situation over time?
Application: If Jacob consistently enjoys his history class throughout the semester, this indicates consistency. However, consistency alone doesn't distinguish between internal (Jacob is a consistent person) or external (the class is consistently good) causes.
2. Distinctiveness:
Definition: Is this behavior or attitude unique to this specific situation (distinct from how the person acts in other situations)?
Low distinctiveness: If Jacob likes all classes (i.e., his attitude towards this class is not distinct) $\rightarrow$ leads to an internal attribution (he generally enjoys being a student and learning).
High distinctiveness: If Jacob only enjoys this history class and not others (i.e., his attitude is highly distinct) $\rightarrow$ leads to an external attribution (there's something specific and unique about this particular class).
3. Consensus:
Definition: Do other people exhibit the same behavior or attitude in this situation? What is the general agreement among others?
High consensus: If everyone else also agrees that the history class is great $\rightarrow$ leads to an external attribution (the class itself is enjoyable).
Low consensus: If only Jacob likes the class, and others don't $\rightarrow$ leads to an internal attribution (there's something specific about Jacob that makes him like the class).
Studies Demonstrating Attribution Biases
Jones and Harris (1967) — Fidel Castro Essay Study
Background: Fidel Castro was an unpopular Cuban dictator at the time, especially in America, where anti-communist sentiments were strong.
Manipulated Variables (Independent Variables):
1. Essay Content: Participants read an essay written either in favor of Fidel Castro or against Fidel Castro.
2. Author's Choice: Participants were told whether the author freely chose the essay's stance (pro- or anti-Castro) or was forced to write in a specific manner.
Measured Variable (Outcome Variable): Participants' estimation of the author's true opinion about Castro.
Results:
When participants believed the author chose their stance, their judgments of the author's true opinion aligned with the essay's content (e.g., pro-Castro essay meant the author was truly pro-Castro) (Expected behavior).
The surprising finding was when participants were told the author was forced to write an essay (e.g., forced to write pro-Castro), they still largely attributed the essay's content to the author's true belief.
There was no significant difference in the judgments of author opinion between the "freely chosen" and "forced" conditions.
Conclusion: This study demonstrates the Correspondence Bias / Fundamental Attribution Error. Participants underestimated the situational influence (the author being forced to write) and overestimated the internal disposition (the author's true belief) in explaining the behavior.
#### Davis Study (Modern Example) — Phone Usage in Teens and Parents
Methodology: Researchers asked both teenagers and their parents about their own phone usage and their feelings about the other person's phone usage.
Findings:
Self-Serving Bias for Own Phone Use: Both teens and parents reported feeling guilty about their phone use but provided numerous external justifications for it (e.g., "had a hard day," "needed to unwind," "had important schoolwork/work to do"). This allowed them to feel better about their behavior.
Correspondence Bias for Others' Phone Use: Both teens and parents believed the other group used their phones "much worse," "more inappropriately," and "more frequently."
Parents' View of Teens: Attributed teens' excessive phone use to internal factors like "kids these days are so different" and expressed worries about their character.
Teens' View of Parents: Labeled parents as "hypocrites" for their own phone use while criticizing their children, implying an internal flaw in their parents' character or consistency.
Conclusion: This study illustrates both biases: individuals were self-serving in explaining their own phone habits (external excuses) but applied correspondence bias when judging others' phone habits (internal blame).
Application: Traffic Situation Activity
Scenario 1: Someone Else is Rude on the Road
Common Attributions Made (Often Correspondence Bias):
"They're a d-bag" (internal).
"They're a dumb person, don't care about safety" (internal).
"They must think they have places to be" (can be internal if seen as a chronic trait, or external if seen as a unique situation).
Exception: Sometimes an external attribution is made, e.g., the person was "raised to be disrespectful." Whether an attribution for drunk driving is internal ("irresponsible person") or external ("alcohol's influence") depends on the full explanation. Often, negative behaviors from others are quickly attributed to their character.
Scenario 2: You are Rude on the Road
Common Attributions Made (Often Self-Serving Bias):
"I'm running late" (external, situational).
"I have places to go, people to see" (often external, a temporary urgency).
"I don't know the area, so I made a last-minute turn or slowed down oddly" (external, situational).
"I was just following the flow of traffic/speeding because others were" (external, reactive to environment).
"Someone else was an asshole first, and I was just reacting to them" (external, blaming another party).
Exception: Rarely, an internal attribution might be made, e.g., "I'm just the kind of person who always has places to be and needs to get there fast."
Key Takeaways from Traffic Examples:
Self-Serving Bias: For our own rude behavior, we predominantly use external explanations, shifting blame to circumstances or others.
Correspondence Bias: For others' rude behavior, we tend to make internal explanations, underestimating situational pressures and overemphasizing their character flaws.