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.
One study on the actor-observer bias investigated attributions for rationales in choosing romantic partners (Nisbett et al., 1973). When male participants were asked what influenced their choice of partner, they tended to cite characteristics external to themselves (e.g., she’s intelligent), emphasizing the role of context or situational qualities in their choices. The participants’ explanations rarely included causes internal to themselves, such as dispositional traits (e.g., “I need companionship.”). When speculating their best friend’s rationale for choosing a romantic partner, they equally described both dispositional qualities (e.g., “he needs someone to calm him down”) as well as situational influences, such as their partner’s personality. This supports the idea that actors tend to provide few internal explanations but many situational explanations for their own behavior. In contrast, observers tend to provide more dispositional explanations for other’s behavior (Figure 1).
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.
We can understand self-serving bias by digging more deeply into attribution, a belief about the cause of a result. One model of attribution proposes three main dimensions:
- locus of control (internal versus external). An internal locus of control is the belief that a person has control over their environment and the ability to change while an external locus of control is the belief that you are mostly influenced by the environment and have little control over what happens to you.
- stability (stable versus unstable). In this context, stability refers to the extent to which the circumstances that result in a given outcome are changeable. The circumstances are considered stable if they are unlikely to change.
- controllability (controllable versus uncontrollable). Controllability refers to the extent to which the circumstances that are associated with a given outcome can be controlled. (Weiner, 1979).
Following an outcome, self-serving biases are those attributions that enable us to see ourselves in a favorable light (Miller & Ross, 1975).
Consider the example of how we explain our favorite sports team’s wins. Research shows that we make internal, stable, and controllable attributions for our team’s victory (Grove, Hanrahan, & McInman, 1991). For example, we might tell ourselves that our team is talented (internal), consistently works hard (stable), and uses effective strategies (controllable). In contrast, we are more likely to make external, unstable, and uncontrollable attributions when our favorite team loses. For example, we might tell ourselves that the other team has more experienced players or that the referees were unfair (external), the other team played at home (unstable), and the cold weather affected our team’s performance (uncontrollable).
When you do well at a task, for example acing an exam, it is in your best interest to make a dispositional attribution for your behavior (“I’m smart,”) instead of a situational one (“The exam was easy,”). This bias serves to protect and bolster self-esteem. You can imagine that if people always made situational attributions for their behavior, they would never be able to take credit for and feel good about their accomplishments.
Is the self-serving bias universal?
However, this phenomenon again appears to be culturally dependent. Some research suggests that individuals in collectivistic cultures tend to attribute successes to luck and are more likely to personalize failures by attributing them to a lack of talent or skill (Bart, Sharavdor, Bazarvaani, Munkhbat, Wenke & Rieger, 2019). This bias has been called the self-effacing bias. Some researchers have theorized that the relatively larger emphasis on individual achievement and success in individualistic cultures might put more pressure on self-esteem, creating a great need to protect it with self-serving bias.
However, there is also evidence that individuals in collectivistic cultures might expect friends, family, and other social supports to make internal attributions for their success, thus enhancing self-esteem through a social, rather than internal, process (Muramoto, 2003). Other research suggests that self-serving bias might be just as common in collectivistic cultures, but that individuals might be less likely to report internal attributions of success unless granted anonymity. This suggests that self-effacing bias might serve a social purpose. Overall, research on cross-cultural attribution styles is still evolving; however, studies suggest that there are both universal as well as unique, cultural-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 people who are physically attractive are more likely to be good people than less attractive individuals. Another example of how the halo effect might manifest would involve assuming that someone whom we perceive to be outgoing or friendly has a better moral character than someone who is not. Or imagine that friend who you really like has cheated on their taxes. Because of the positive view you have of your friend, you may dismiss the significance of this behavior or think that the person simply made a mistake.
Just-World Hypothesis
One consequence of Westerners’ tendency to provide dispositional explanations for behavior is victim blame (Jost & Major, 2001). When people experience bad fortune, others tend to assume that they somehow are responsible for their own fate. A common ideology, or worldview, in the United States is 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). The ability to think of the world as a fair place, where people get what they deserve, allows us to feel that the world is predictable and that we have some control over our life outcomes (Jost et al., 2004; Jost & Major, 2001). For example, the idea that if you want to experience positive outcomes, you just need to work hard to get ahead in life
Can you think of a negative consequence of the just-world hypothesis? One negative consequence is people’s tendency to blame low-income individuals for their economic status. What common explanations are given for why people live below the poverty line? Have you heard statements such as, “They just don’t want to work” or “they just want to live off the government”? What types of explanations are these—dispositional or situational?
These dispositional explanations are clear examples of fundamental attribution error that results in victim blaming, thereby reinforcing our just-world beliefs. Blaming individuals for their poverty status ignores situational factors that impact them, such as high unemployment rates, generational trauma, systemic inequities, recession, and poor educational opportunities. In the United States and other countries, victims of sexual assault may also find themselves blamed for their abuse. Victim advocacy groups, such as Domestic Violence Ended (DOVE), attend court in support of victims to ensure that blame is directed at the perpetrators of sexual violence, not the victims.