Actor-Observer Bias
There are several other attribution errors that relate and connect to the fundamental attribution error.
actor-observer bias
The actor-observer bias is the phenomenon of attributing other people’s behavior to internal factors (fundamental attribution error) while attributing our own behavior to situational forces (Jones & Nisbett, 1971; Nisbett, Caputo, Legant, & Marecek, 1973; Choi & Nisbett, 1998). As actors of behavior, we have more information available to explain our own behavior. However as observers, we have less information available; therefore, we tend to default to a dispositionist perspective.
Choosing Romantic Partners
One study investigated how people explain their choice of romantic partners (Nisbett et al., 1973). When male participants explained why they chose their girlfriend, they cited characteristics external to themselves: “She’s intelligent,” “She’s funny,” or “She’s kind.” They emphasized situational qualities and rarely mentioned internal causes like “I need companionship” or “I value loyalty.”
However, when these same men speculated about why their best friend chose his girlfriend, they described both dispositional qualities (“He needs someone to calm him down”) and situational influences (the girlfriend’s personality). This demonstrates that actors provide mainly situational explanations for their own behavior, while observers provide more dispositional explanations for others’ behavior.
Self-Serving Bias
self-serving bias
Self-serving bias is the tendency to explain our successes as due to dispositional (internal) characteristics but to explain our failures as due to situational (external) factors.
Understanding Attribution Dimensions
To understand self-serving bias, we need to explore how people make attributions. One influential model proposes three dimensions (Weiner, 1979):
- Locus of control (internal versus external): An internal locus of control is the belief that you have control over your environment and ability to change. An external locus of control is the belief that you are mostly influenced by the environment with little control over outcomes.
- Stability (stable versus unstable): Stability refers to whether circumstances are likely to change. Stable circumstances are unlikely to change, while unstable circumstances are temporary.
- Controllability (controllable versus uncontrollable): Controllability refers to the extent to which circumstances can be controlled or influenced.
Self-serving biases are those attributions that enable us to see ourselves in a favorable light (Miller & Ross, 1975).
Sports Teams and Self-Serving Bias
Consider how we explain our favorite sports team’s performance. Research shows that when our team wins, we make internal, stable, and controllable attributions (Grove, Hanrahan, & McInman, 1991). We tell ourselves that our team is talented (internal), consistently works hard (stable), and uses effective strategies (controllable).
When our favorite team loses, however, we make external, unstable, and uncontrollable attributions. We blame the other team’s more experienced players (external), the away-game disadvantage (unstable), or bad weather affecting performance (uncontrollable). We protect our positive view of the team by attributing losses to factors beyond the team’s control.
Protecting Self-Esteem
When you ace an exam, it’s in your best interest to make a dispositional attribution: “I’m smart.” This feels better than a situational attribution: “The exam was easy.” This bias serves to protect and bolster self-esteem. If people always made situational attributions for their behavior, they would never take credit for their accomplishments or feel good about their achievements.
Cultural Variations in Self-Serving Bias
This phenomenon appears culturally dependent. Some research suggests that individuals in collectivistic cultures tend to attribute successes to luck and are more likely to internalize failures by attributing them to lack of talent or skill (Bart, Sharavdor, Bazarvaani, Munkhbat, Wenke & Rieger, 2019). This pattern has been called the self-effacing bias.
Researchers theorize that the emphasis on individual achievement in individualistic cultures creates more pressure on self-esteem, necessitating protective self-serving biases. In contrast, collectivistic cultures may protect self-esteem through social processes—individuals expect friends and family to make internal attributions for their successes, enhancing self-esteem through others’ praise rather than self-praise (Muramoto, 2003).
However, other research suggests self-serving bias may be equally common in collectivistic cultures, but individuals may be less likely to report internal attributions publicly unless granted anonymity. This suggests that self-effacing bias might serve a social purpose—maintaining modesty and group harmony. Overall, research on cross-cultural attribution styles continues to evolve, revealing both universal and culturally specific features of attribution biases (Higgins & Bhatt, 2001).
The Halo Effect
The halo effect refers to the tendency to let the overall impression of an individual color the way in which we feel about their character.
the halo effect
The halo effect is the tendency for positive impressions of a person, company, country, brand, or product in one area to positively or negatively influence one’s opinion or feelings in other areas.
For instance, we might assume that physically attractive people are more likely to be good, kind, or intelligent than less attractive individuals. This is why attractive defendants sometimes receive more lenient treatment in courtrooms, and why attractive job applicants may have an advantage in hiring.
Another example: if you perceive someone as outgoing or friendly, you may also assume they have better moral character than someone who is quiet or reserved. Or consider a friend you really like who cheats on their taxes. Because of your positive overall view, you may dismiss the significance of this behavior or rationalize that they simply made a mistake. The halo effect prevents you from seeing their behavior objectively.
Just-World Hypothesis
One consequence of the tendency to provide dispositional explanations is victim blaming (Jost & Major, 2001). When people experience misfortune, others often assume they are somehow responsible for their own fate. This reflects a common worldview called the just-world hypothesis.
just-world hypothesis
The just-world hypothesis is the belief that people get the outcomes they deserve (Lerner & Miller, 1978). In order to maintain the belief that the world is a fair place, people tend to think that good people experience positive outcomes, and bad people experience negative outcomes (Jost, Banaji, & Nosek, 2004; Jost & Major, 2001).
Why We Believe in a Just World
Believing in a just world is psychologically comforting. It allows us to feel that the world is predictable and that we have control over our life outcomes (Jost et al., 2004; Jost & Major, 2001). If good things happen to good people, then by being good, we can ensure positive outcomes for ourselves. If we work hard, we’ll get ahead in life.
The Dark Side: Blaming Victims
The just-world hypothesis has serious negative consequences. It leads people to blame low-income individuals for their economic status. Common explanations for poverty include: “They just don’t want to work” or “They just want to live off the government.” These are dispositional explanations.
These explanations exemplify the fundamental attribution error and result in victim blaming, reinforcing just-world beliefs. Blaming individuals for their poverty ignores powerful situational factors: high unemployment rates, generational trauma, systemic inequities, recession, discrimination, and poor educational opportunities.
In the United States and other countries, victims of sexual assault may also be blamed for their abuse. Questions like “What were you wearing?” or “Why were you there alone?” shift responsibility from perpetrator to victim. Victim advocacy groups, such as Domestic Violence Ended (DOVE), attend court proceedings to support victims and ensure that blame remains directed at perpetrators, not victims.
The just-world hypothesis is a cognitive bias that, while comforting, can lead to harsh and unfair judgments of people experiencing hardship through no fault of their own.