The Sociocultural Level of Analysis

Session 3Errors in Attribution

A recap

Principles of SCLOA?

1.2.3.4.

How well do you know yourself?

Complete the following questionnaire. Results will be kept anonymous.

How well do you know me?

Discuss two errors in attributions

Learning Outcome

What the command term

means:

Discuss: Offer a considered and

balanced review that includes a

range of arguments. Factors or

hypothesis. Opinions or

conclusions should be presented

clearly and supported by

appropriate evidence

Theory argues that people act like naïve scientists Humans are very social and have a need to

understand why things happen and how and why people behave in certain situations.

Heider (1958) proposed a theory in which he suggested that we tend to interpret and explain our own behaviour and the behaviour of others by assigning attributes to behaviour.

Heider suggested that attributions can be situational (external) or dispositional (internal)

Attribution Theory

Attribution: how people interpret and explain causal relationships in the social world and society.

Psychologists have discovered that when attributing behaviour, people can often make errors and biases.

Attributional error (AE): a false assumption or distortion in perception or judgement about the causes of our own or other people’s behaviour. 

Important Definitions

1. Fundamental Attribution Error2. Self serving Bias

Two Errors in Attribution

1. Fundamental Attribution Error

What’s Johnny Depp like?

What’s Will Ferrel like?

Refers to when people overestimate the role of dispositional factors in an individual’s behaviour and underestimate situational factors

Since people gather information by observing others, this often leads to illogical conclusions

According to social psychologist Fiske (2004), people rely too much on personality in explaining behaviour and they underestimate the power of situations

Fundamental Attribution Error (Ross 1977)

In Western societies it could be because of the ideology that people get what they deserve (Gilber, 1995)

It makes life more predictable if people’s behaviour is mainly caused by their personality. This gives the impression that people are understandable and easy to deal with

Explanations solely based on personality are often incomplete, it is wrong to ignore the power of the situation

Why is the FAE so common?

Aim to investigate whether knowledge of

allocated social roles in a quiz show would affect participants’ judgement of people’s expertise

Ross et al (1977) FAE Study

Procedure 18 pairs of students from an introductory

psychology class Participated in a simulated quiz game Randomly assigned to roles of either quiz

host or contestant 24 other participants assigned to role of live

audience

Ross et al (1977) FAE Study

Procedure Quiz hosts asked to compose 10 questions based on

their own knowledge and contestants were asked to answer these questions

Quiz hosts instructed to ask each question, wait around 30 seconds for a response

If contestants did not answer correctly the host gave the correct answer

After quiz all participants and observers were asked to rate the general knowledge of contestants and hosts

Ross et al (1977) FAE Study

Results Both contestants and observers consistently

rated the intelligence of the host as superior despite being aware that each participant was randomly assigned to a condition.

Those assigned to quiz show host did not rate their intelligence as being superior

Ross et al (1977) FAE Study

Conclusions Clear demonstration of FAE. Contestants and observers attributed the

hosts ability to dispositional factors and failed to take into consideration the situational factors that gave the hosts an advantage (they got to write the questions)

Ross et al (1977) FAE Study

Experimental setup was ingenious. It clearly gave the opportunity to demonstrate attributional biases because the hosts made up their own questions and this was known by all participants

The participants were all university students. University students are accustomed to listening to authority figures who they deem to have superior knowledge. It could be that this is a learned response rather than an attribution error

A study that used a sample of university students is not necessarily generalisable to whole population

As this was an artificial task the ecological validity could also be questioned, people may not necessarily reflect the same behaviour in a real world context

Evaluation of Ross et al (1977)

Aim:  To see whether participants would demonstrate

FAE when attributing behaviour (to disposition), even if they knew that a specific role was assigned, and chance-directed behaviours to situation. 

Jones and Harris (1967)

Method:  Asked American students to read essays written by

fellow students about Fidel Castro, who were told to write either pro- or anti- Castro and guess the attitude of the writers towards Castro. 

Half the participants were told the writers were free to choose their view on Castro in the essay (choice condition). 

Other half were told the writers had no choice; experimenters assigned them a view on Castro (no choice condition). 

Jones and Harris (1967)

Results:  Participants assumed the viewpoint of

Castro in speeches reflected attitudes (dispositions) of the writers in both choice and no choice condition. 

Conclusion:  Although participants knew that the view of

the writers was constrained by situation, but still opted for dispositional attribution. 

Jones and Harris (1967)

Strengths ◦ Laboratory experiment 

Strict control over variables  Determined a cause-effect relationship  Findings support FAE 

Limitations ◦ Lacks ecological validity - cannot be generalised to

the whole population  Participants (ethnocentric) 

Thus, not representative sample, as all American P"s were used 

Laboratory experiment  Artificial environment 

Jones and Harris (1967)

Investigated attributions made by Holocaust survivors

Researcher gave questionnaires to members of Holocaust survivor groups and age matched Jewish participants who had not personally experienced the Nazi persecution (control)

2 groups were asked for their views on possible factors in survival during the Holocaust

Suedfeld (2003)

Results

This indicates personal experiences during Holocaust influenced survivor’s attributions because they had witnessed that it was actually often luck or help from others that determined who survived. The survivors had a clear picture of the power of the situation during the Holocaust.

Suedfeld (2003)

Holocaust Survivors Jewish control

Situational Factors 91% 51%

Dispositional Factors 34% 71%

Things about you Things about meDispositional Situational Dispositional Situational

Back to our questionnaire responses

Can we see any evidence of FAE here?

Culture seems to be a determinant in attribution style:

In collectivist cultures the emphasis is on the primary social relationships of an individual (family, social role, cultural activities)

In individualistic cultures the emphasis is on the individual as the primary cause of action leads to dispositional factors. The individual is seen as the main cause of success and failure

Cultural Bias in the FAE

Norenzayan et al (2002) Tested whether information given to Korean and

American participants would influence their attributions

When participants received information about individuals, both groups made dispositional attributions

When situational information was also provided, the Koreans tended to include this information in their explanations more than Americans did

This indicates there may be cultural differences in attribution errors

Cultural Bias in the FAE

Strengths Theory has promoted understanding of

common errors in explanations of what happens around the world

The theory has proven very robust and has been supported by many empirical studies

Evaluation of Theory of Fundamental Attribution Error

Limitations Theory is culturally biased with too much

focus on individualism Much research on theory has been

conducted in laboratories and with student samples

Evaluation of Theory of Fundamental Attribution Error

Think back to a time when you have:

◦ Done something you’re proud of◦ Won something◦ Been rude to someone◦ Messed up

Class discussion

Why do you think these things happened?

◦ Done something you’re proud of◦ Won something◦ Been rude to someone◦ Messed up

Class discussion

2. Self Serving Bias

SSB is a self enhancing strategy Refers to people’s tendency to evaluate

themselves positively by taking credit for their success and attribute their failures to situational factors

The Self Serving Bias

Self Serving Bias

A special version of SSB is called “self handicapping”

When people expect to fail they may openly make situational attributions before their actions

The Self Serving Bias

Self-handicapping

Greenberg et al (1982) argued SSB could be a way to uphold self esteem. If we can attribute our successes to dispositional factors and our failures as being beyond our control, it protects our self esteem. It is a means of self protection.

Possible Explanations for SSB

Miller and Ross (1975) suggested that cognitive factors (what we expect to happen) play a role in SSB

We usually expect to succeed at a task

This is commonly observed in Western world

Possible Explanations for SSB

• Success= dispositional factors• Failure= situational factorsIf we expect

to succeed

• Success= Situational Factors• Failure= dispositional factorsIf we expect

to fail

A sporting example…how might they explain their win?

A sporting example…how might they explain their loss?

Found that American football coaches and players were more likely to attribute success to dispositional factors and failure to situational factors

Lau and Russel (1980)

Performed an SSB experiment with children Asked children to do math problems sitting

either with a friend or non-friend Although they sat in pairs the children had

to do the math problems alone, but the total score of the pair was noted

Posey and Smith (2003)

Children were asked who did the better job Children who worked with friends and failed

were less likely to show the SSB and more likely to give their friends credit when they succeeded.

Children who worked with a non-friend were more likely to show the SSB

Posey and Smith (2003)

Culture specific attribution styles may be a natural part of enculturation and socialisation

Some argue that SSB is primarily linked to individualistic cultures but others believe it can be found in both individualistic and collectivist cultures

Cultural considerations in the SSB

Kashima & Triandis (1986) Showed slides of unfamiliar countries to American and

Japanese students Asked them to remember details When students were asked to explain their performance, the

Americans explained their own success with internal factors such as ability and failure with external factors

The Japanese tended to explain their failure with lack of ability. Reasoned that due to more collective nature of Asian societies

that if people derive self esteem not from individual accomplishment but instead from group identity then people are less likely to use SSB

This is called the modesty bias and is a cultural variation of the SSB

Cultural Considerations in SSB

Bond, Leung & Wan (1982) Found that Chinese students who exhibited

the modesty bias instead of SSB were more popular with their peers

Argued that a possible explanation for the modest bias in collectivist cultures could be a cultural norm in Chinese societies to maintain harmonious personal relationships

A person who makes self-effacing attributions could be expected to be better liked

Modesty Bias- a cultural variation of SSB

The theory can explain why some people (mostly from individualistic cultures) explain their failures as being caused by situational factors

Evaluation of SSB theory

The theory is culturally biased. It cannot explain why some cultures emphasise a self-effacing attribution (modesty bias)

Evaluation of SSB theory