The fundamental attribution error

[superstition]

In attribution theory, the fundamental attribution error (also known as correspondence bias or overattribution effect) is the tendency for people to over-emphasize dispositional, or personality-based, explanations for behaviors observed in others while under-emphasizing situational explanations. In other words, people have an unjustified tendency to assume that a person's actions depend on what "kind" of person that person is rather than on the social and environmental forces influencing the person. Overattribution is less likely, perhaps even inverted, when people explain their own behavior; this discrepancy is called the actor-observer bias.

There is no universally-accepted explanation for the fundamental attribution error. One hypothesis is that the error results largely from perspective. When we observe other people, the person is the primary reference point. When we observe ourselves, we are more aware of the forces acting upon us. So, attributions for others' behavior are more likely to focus on the person we see, not the situational forces acting upon that person that we may not be aware of. In the parlance of psychology research, this is called salience: the more salient a factor is, the more likely it is for a behavior to be attributed to it.

Persons in a state of cognitive load are more likely to commit the fundamental attribution error.

There is some evidence to support the contention that cultures which tend to emphasize the individual over the group ("individualistic" cultures) tend to make more dispositional attributions than do the "collectivist" cultures. Persons living in more individualistic societies may be more likely to commit the fundamental attribution error (Miller, 1984).

This is something to keep in mind, concerning many things, such as the "victim mentality" topic.

One example is crime and poor school performance in inner city neighborhoods. People often overly attribute bad behavior to personality. They may use bootstraps rhetoric, "blame the parents", etc. Environmental factors such as lead poisoning from paint dust are usually ignored. A Cincinnati Enquirer article from 2001 found that the vast majority of children in the inner city have high levels of lead in their blood. This causes mental retardation and makes people prone to violent behavior. The lead is probably primarily from the sandblasting of lead paint and the demolition of old buildings.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: superstition

In attribution theory, the fundamental attribution error (also known as correspondence bias or overattribution effect) is the tendency for people to over-emphasize dispositional, or personality-based, explanations for behaviors observed in others while under-emphasizing situational explanations. In other words, people have an unjustified tendency to assume that a person's actions depend on what "kind" of person that person is rather than on the social and environmental forces influencing the person. Overattribution is less likely, perhaps even inverted, when people explain their own behavior; this discrepancy is called the actor-observer bias.

There is no universally-accepted explanation for the fundamental attribution error. One hypothesis is that the error results largely from perspective. When we observe other people, the person is the primary reference point. When we observe ourselves, we are more aware of the forces acting upon us. So, attributions for others' behavior are more likely to focus on the person we see, not the situational forces acting upon that person that we may not be aware of. In the parlance of psychology research, this is called salience: the more salient a factor is, the more likely it is for a behavior to be attributed to it.

Persons in a state of cognitive load are more likely to commit the fundamental attribution error.

There is some evidence to support the contention that cultures which tend to emphasize the individual over the group ("individualistic" cultures) tend to make more dispositional attributions than do the "collectivist" cultures. Persons living in more individualistic societies may be more likely to commit the fundamental attribution error (Miller, 1984).

If somebody talked to me this way my tendency would be to punch them in the nose.

 

[superstition]

Sometimes the truth hurts.

 

[CycloWizard]

The simple reason this is so popular is because it's a simple explanation that requires no extra factors to explain what we see. Whether it's correct or not doesn't matter in this context becaues people prefer simple explanations to things.

It also might help if you could post a link to where you got the quoted material in the OP from originally, as well as a link to the Enquirer article. Lead contamination is a very serious issue that is only now starting to be understood, though I've most commonly heard of it arising from water distribution systems, which very often still have 100+-year-old lead pipes. Changes in water treatment systems in recent years have resulted in the loss of protective scaling that formed in these pipes. This has the nasty side effect of exposing the lead in the pipes to the drinking water supply in these areas. I can't recall off the top of my head if Cinci is one of these areas, but it wouldn't surprise me.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: superstition

In attribution theory, the fundamental attribution error (also known as correspondence bias or overattribution effect) is the tendency for people to over-emphasize dispositional, or personality-based, explanations for behaviors observed in others while under-emphasizing situational explanations. In other words, people have an unjustified tendency to assume that a person's actions depend on what "kind" of person that person is rather than on the social and environmental forces influencing the person. Overattribution is less likely, perhaps even inverted, when people explain their own behavior; this discrepancy is called the actor-observer bias.

There is no universally-accepted explanation for the fundamental attribution error. One hypothesis is that the error results largely from perspective. When we observe other people, the person is the primary reference point. When we observe ourselves, we are more aware of the forces acting upon us. So, attributions for others' behavior are more likely to focus on the person we see, not the situational forces acting upon that person that we may not be aware of. In the parlance of psychology research, this is called salience: the more salient a factor is, the more likely it is for a behavior to be attributed to it.

Persons in a state of cognitive load are more likely to commit the fundamental attribution error.

There is some evidence to support the contention that cultures which tend to emphasize the individual over the group ("individualistic" cultures) tend to make more dispositional attributions than do the "collectivist" cultures. Persons living in more individualistic societies may be more likely to commit the fundamental attribution error (Miller, 1984).

If somebody talked to me this way my tendency would be to punch them in the nose.

You are such a violent person... Perhaps you hate yourself?

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
If somebody talked to me this way my tendency would be to punch them in the nose.

Sounds like too much lead.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: superstition
Sometimes the truth hurts.

When Mulla Nasrudin was carrying a crate of chickens to market and felt the strain of their weight he chanced upon a rare and insightful idea. I will let the chickens out and they can walk with me. But the chickens started wondering off in every direction. How is it, said the Mulla to his chickens, that you know when the sun comes up, but can't figure out where I'm going.

The truth is that I am one of your chickens.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: superstition
Sometimes the truth hurts.

When Mulla Nasrudin was carrying a crate of chickens to market and felt the strain of their weight he chanced upon a rare and insightful idea. I will let the chickens out and they can walk with me. But the chickens started wondering off in every direction. How is it, said the Mulla to his chickens, that you know when the sun comes up, but can't figure out where I'm going.

The truth is that I am one of your chickens.

:laugh:

 

[Moonbeam]

I keep wondering where this thread would have gone had it been presented in English instead of professor asshole speak.

 

[superstition]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I keep wondering where this thread would have gone had it been presented in English instead of professor asshole speak.

I'm not a professor (just an undergraduate) and it makes perfect sense to me.

Maybe this will help:

AL Family TV Hour, Buck. [Buck sits on the couch with them] Now, let's see what's on TV
[reads the guide] Hey! Here's a good show for you, Peg: "Goober". [reads out slowly and
childishly] "Gooooober Goooes To Tooown". Go ahead, Peg, you try to read the rest!

Al, Kelly and Bud laugh.
Peggy folds her arms, displeased.

BUD [to Al and Kelly] How about this one. [to Peg] How about some math, Mom? [holds up three
fingers] How many fingers am I holding up?

Al, Bud and Kelly laugh.

KELLY Yeah yeah, Mom, answer this one... [she realises she can't think of anything] Oh well,
it doesn't matter. At least I'm not the stupidest.

Al gets up and the kids follow him to the desk behind the couch.
Buck sits on the couch next to Peggy.

AL Kids, come with me. I want to show you something. It's the only one of its kind in the
house. My High School Diploma.

He points to his High School Diploma on the wall above the desk.

KELLY [pointedly to Peg] Ooooh!
BUD [pointedly to Peg] Ooooh!

AL Kelly, pretty soon you'll have one, then Bud, you'll have one and then, well, that's all!

The three of them laugh.

AL Oh, wait a minute, that's not fair! Buck graduated obedience school. [He picks up Buck's
certificate from the desk] See, here's his Diploma. So, Peg, you're kinda... fifth
smartest.

They all laugh at her again.

PEGGY [sadly] I am not dumber than the dog!

AL Oh yeah? Well, let's just see about that. [to Buck] Buck, get off the couch. [Buck jumps
off] When was the last time you did that, Peg?

Al, Bud and Kelly laugh at Peg again and congratulate Al.

AL OK look, kids, I'm gonna go to the store to get some dinner. Hey! How about alphabet
soup? That way you can eat AND learn!

 

[Moonbeam]

Damn, I couldn't even finish reading that. Too many unfamiliar characters to follow. But if you understood the OP how about you taking a crack at it in your own words. I always feel like people who talk in language like that have some ant observation they want to inflate into some seemingly mountainous insight and talk that way partly to flatter their point and partly to hide the ordinariness of the observation. So you may have understood it, but I couldn't get past the reek of pretension and bull shit, sorry.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Damn, I couldn't even finish reading that. Too many unfamiliar characters to follow. But if you understood the OP how about you taking a crack at it in your own words. I always feel like people who talk in language like that have some ant observation they want to inflate into some seemingly mountainous insight and talk that way partly to flatter their point and partly to hide the ordinariness of the observation. So you may have understood it, but I couldn't get past the reek of pretension and bull shit, sorry.

Rather than trying to find other potential reasons for a person's bad behavior, it is often easier to point to a stereotype.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Damn, I couldn't even finish reading that. Too many unfamiliar characters to follow. But if you understood the OP how about you taking a crack at it in your own words. I always feel like people who talk in language like that have some ant observation they want to inflate into some seemingly mountainous insight and talk that way partly to flatter their point and partly to hide the ordinariness of the observation. So you may have understood it, but I couldn't get past the reek of pretension and bull shit, sorry.

Using crime as an example:

If a man commits a crime, there's a human tendency to assume the man is dishonest rather than a victim of circumstance.

In other words, humans prefer simple explanations in which a person's actions are a reflection of the person's character. Humans don't like complex explanations, in which a person's actions are a consequence of outside influences.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Damn, I couldn't even finish reading that. Too many unfamiliar characters to follow. But if you understood the OP how about you taking a crack at it in your own words. I always feel like people who talk in language like that have some ant observation they want to inflate into some seemingly mountainous insight and talk that way partly to flatter their point and partly to hide the ordinariness of the observation. So you may have understood it, but I couldn't get past the reek of pretension and bull shit, sorry.

Using crime as an example:

If a man commits a crime, there's a human tendency to assume the man is dishonest rather than a victim of circumstance.

In other words, humans prefer simple explanations in which a person's actions are a reflection of the person's character. Humans don't like complex explanations, in which a person's actions are a consequence of outside influences.

Thank God that's not true as regards bad character. All the criminals I've talked to all had good reasons.

 

[spittledip]

A glaring omission from the OP: there is no mention of personal responsibility. Also, both personality/biology and circumstances play a role in the behaviors people choose to exhibit.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: spittledip
A glaring omission from the OP: there is no mention of personal responsibility. Also, both personality/biology and circumstances play a role in the behaviors people choose to exhibit.

Actually, a consequence of "attribution error" is that we humans have a tendency to TOO easily dismiss the transgressions of others as lapses in "personal responsibility," with very little allowance for context.

Naturally, when the transgressions are our own, we're much more understanding.

 

[Jaskalas]

Such understanding may be useful in prevention, but it?s like understanding Germany?s actions in WW2 ? we still had to stop it with force regardless of whether we understood the motivation or not.

I would hope that blaming criminal behavior on lead would have us remove the lead, instead of making excuses for crime. It?s especially important because there are those who rise above adverse conditions, who we should exemplify as the model citizen.

There?s the crux of it right there. Not everyone exposed to lead is a criminal. So whatever factor it is, it can be overcome.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Such understanding may be useful in prevention, but it?s like understanding Germany?s actions in WW2 ? we still had to stop it with force regardless of whether we understood the motivation or not.

I would hope that blaming criminal behavior on lead would have us remove the lead, instead of making excuses for crime. It?s especially important because there are those who rise above adverse conditions, who we should exemplify as the model citizen.

There?s the crux of it right there. Not everyone exposed to lead is a criminal. So whatever factor it is, it can be overcome.

You started out well but went quickly back to your basic prejudice. Lets say we can mix a cocktail of lead such that 10% in a glass of water kills 10% of the people who drink it and 20% kills 20% and so on, and then we argue that whatever the factors are that are causing death at 99% we can still see some rise above it. Do you really need a 100% dose to see the fallacy in your argument? Lead kills people and those who survive exposure don't do so because they are morally superior. As long as the factors that cause an increase in crime among people exposed to lead are an unknown any conclusions we draw regarding who or why people are affected are also unknown.

 

[LittleNemoNES]

Originally posted by: superstition

In attribution theory, the fundamental attribution error (also known as correspondence bias or overattribution effect) is the tendency for people to over-emphasize dispositional, or personality-based, explanations for behaviors observed in others while under-emphasizing situational explanations. In other words, people have an unjustified tendency to assume that a person's actions depend on what "kind" of person that person is rather than on the social and environmental forces influencing the person. Overattribution is less likely, perhaps even inverted, when people explain their own behavior; this discrepancy is called the actor-observer bias.

There is no universally-accepted explanation for the fundamental attribution error. One hypothesis is that the error results largely from perspective. When we observe other people, the person is the primary reference point. When we observe ourselves, we are more aware of the forces acting upon us. So, attributions for others' behavior are more likely to focus on the person we see, not the situational forces acting upon that person that we may not be aware of. In the parlance of psychology research, this is called salience: the more salient a factor is, the more likely it is for a behavior to be attributed to it.

Persons in a state of cognitive load are more likely to commit the fundamental attribution error.

There is some evidence to support the contention that cultures which tend to emphasize the individual over the group ("individualistic" cultures) tend to make more dispositional attributions than do the "collectivist" cultures. Persons living in more individualistic societies may be more likely to commit the fundamental attribution error (Miller, 1984).

This is something to keep in mind, concerning many things, such as the "victim mentality" topic.

One example is crime and poor school performance in inner city neighborhoods. People often overly attribute bad behavior to personality. They may use bootstraps rhetoric, "blame the parents", etc. Environmental factors such as lead poisoning from paint dust are usually ignored. A Cincinnati Enquirer article from 2001 found that the vast majority of children in the inner city have high levels of lead in their blood. This causes mental retardation and makes people prone to violent behavior. The lead is probably primarily from the sandblasting of lead paint and the demolition of old buildings.

Thanks for posting this. I'm always trying to better myself -- I'll try to have this is 'ram'. It immediately shone some light on my behaviour.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Such understanding may be useful in prevention, but it?s like understanding Germany?s actions in WW2 ? we still had to stop it with force regardless of whether we understood the motivation or not.

I would hope that blaming criminal behavior on lead would have us remove the lead, instead of making excuses for crime. It?s especially important because there are those who rise above adverse conditions, who we should exemplify as the model citizen.

There?s the crux of it right there. Not everyone exposed to lead is a criminal. So whatever factor it is, it can be overcome.

I agree that understanding that there are causes of criminality (or other less than ideal behavior) beyond the character of the perpetrator doesn't mean we excuse the crime (behavior). But it may be the difference between the death penalty and life in prison. Or the difference between giving up on poor students and allocating resources for remedial programs.