Fundamental Attribution Error: Incorrect Behavioral Causes

It is impossible to evaluate all the information we find on a daily basis, and even more so due to the internet and social networks. We must continuously make decisions based on information we have or can search for. This leads to quick decisions based on heuristics, leading to bias such as the fundamental attribution error (Gilbert, 1989).

It is also called correspondence bias and affects and distorts the attributions we make. The fundamental attribution error describes the tendency or inclination to exaggerate or overestimate internal, personal dispositions or motives when we try to explain / attribute / interpret behaviors that we observe in other people,  rather than the circumstances.

Edward E. Jones and Keith Dasvis (1967) designed a study to test how attributions worked. More specifically, they wanted to study the way we attribute criticism to an unpleasant attitude. Let’s take a look at the experiment to clarify this phenomenon.

In this experiment, participants read essays against dictator Fidel Castro and others for Fidel Castro. They then had to describe the authors’ attitudes towards Fidel Castro. The attributions they made were the same as those attributed to the content of the text. They said that those who wrote well about Castro liked him, while those who wrote badly about him were against him.

So far, the results were as expected. When it was thought that the authors wrote freely, the attributions that were made were internal. Participants believed that the authors wrote based on their own beliefs. Other participants, however, were told that it was chance that decided whether they wrote for or against Castro. A single penny decided that.

With this new information, the researchers expected that the participants would now make external attributions. But the attributions remained internal. If you write for, you are for; if you write against, you are against, no matter what motives made you write.

It’s interesting how the mind works, right?

But what are internal and external attributions? What is the difference between them? These attributions refer to reasons or causes (Ross, 1977).

Therefore , an internal attribution is one that makes the person, more specifically his internal characteristics, responsible for the result. These inner traits include attitude and personality.

For example, if someone I do not like cogs a test or gets fired from work, it happened because the person is lazy or stupid at work. Being stupid or lazy are stable traits in people.

On the other hand  , external attributions refer to the influence of situations, changes and in many cases dangerous factors have.

If we continue with the example above, I can assume that a person was fired because he had a bad day or that the boss is incompetent. In this case, the attributions are based on the circumstances, such as having a bad day or the internal characteristics of third parties.

There are several theories that try to explain how the fundamental attribution error occurs. Even if we do not know exactly what is happening, we have certain hypotheses and theories.

One of these theories is the “fair world hypothesis” (Lerner and Miller, 1977). According to this hypothesis  , people get what they deserve and deserve what they get. Attributing the failure of a person we do not like to personality rather than situational factors satisfies our need to believe in a just world. This belief reinforces the idea that we have control over our lives.

Another theory is that of the actor’s communication (Lassiter, Geers, Munhall, Ploutz-Zinder and Breitenbecher, 2002). When we pay attention to an action, the individual is the point of reference. We ignore the situation, as if it were a simple background.

Therefore, the attributions of behaviors are based on the people we observe. When we observe ourselves, we are more aware of the forces we are exposed to, which leads to external attributions.

The fundamental attribution error does not occur in the same way throughout the world. Some researchers have discovered that it is much more common in individualistic cultures (Markus and Kiyatama, 1991). These individualistic people more often fall for bias than people in collective cultures.

In this way, Asians more often attribute behaviors to situations, while Westerners attribute behaviors to the actor.

Culture can establish these differences. Individualists, who are more common in Western countries, tend to see themselves as independent actors, and are therefore inclined to pay attention to individual objects rather than contextual details. In contrast, the collectivist tends  to pay more attention to the context.

A classic difference can be found in pictures. Western artists paint people who cover a large part of the paintings, while they barely develop the depth. In countries like Japan, very small people are painted instead in landscapes where every detail is very developed.

As we have seen, biases are difficult to avoid because they include factors such as culture. But  they are not impossible to avoid. Some techniques that can help one to correct the fundamental attribution error are (Gilbert, 1989):

• Pay attention to consistent information. If many people behave in the same way in the same situation, the reason may be the situation.
• Ask yourself how you would have acted in the same situation.
• Look for undetected causes. More specifically, look for factors that stand out less.