Attribution Error Wiki
Contents |
opinions of experts. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. (December 2012) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) In psychology, an attribution bias wiki attribution theory or attributional bias is a cognitive bias that refers to the systematic
Wikipedia Fundamental Attribution Error
errors made when people evaluate or try to find reasons for their own and others' behaviors.[1][2][3] People constantly make
Self Attribution Error
attributions regarding the cause of their own and others' behaviors; however, attributions do not always accurately mirror reality. Rather than operating as objective perceivers, people are prone to perceptual errors that lead
Attribution Error Example
to biased interpretations of their social world.[4][5] Attribution biases were first discussed in the 1950s and 60s by psychologists such as Fritz Heider, who studied attribution theory.[1] Other psychologists, such as Harold Kelley and Ed Jones expanded Heider's early work by identifying conditions under which people are more or less likely to make different types of attributions. Attribution biases are present in everyday life, attribution error definition and therefore are an important and relevant topic to study. For example, when a driver cuts us off, we are more likely to attribute blame to the reckless driver (e.g., "What a jerk!"), rather than situational circumstances (e.g., "Maybe they were in a rush and didn’t notice me"). Additionally, there are many different types of attribution biases, such as the ultimate attribution error, fundamental attribution error, actor-observer bias, and hostile attribution bias. Each of these biases describes a specific tendency that people exhibit when reasoning about the cause of different behaviors. Since the early work, researchers have continued to examine how and why people exhibit biased interpretations of social information.[2][6] Many different types of attribution biases have been identified, and more recent psychological research on these biases has examined how attribution biases can subsequently affect emotions and behavior.[7][8][9] Contents 1 History 1.1 Attribution theory 1.1.1 Fritz Heider 1.1.2 Jones & Davis 1.1.3 Harold Kelley 1.2 Biased attributions 1.2.1 Cognitive explanation 1.2.2 Motivational explanation 2 Current theory 3 Limitations of the theory 4 Types 4.1 Fundamental attribution error 4.2 Actor-observer bias 4.3 Self-serving bias 4.4 Hostile attribution bias 5 Consequence
(1) that the characteristics of an individual group member are reflective of the group as a whole, or (2) that a group's decision outcome must reflect attribution error sociology the preferences of individual group members, even when information is available suggesting attribution error communication otherwise. The fundamental attribution error is similar in that it refers to the tendency to believe that an individual's ultimate attribution error actions are representative of the individual's preferences, even when available information suggests that the actions were caused by outside forces. Contents 1 Type I 2 Type II 3 Limitation 4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_bias See also 5 References 6 Further reading Type I[edit] To demonstrate the first form of group attribution error, research participants are typically given case studies about individuals who are members of defined groups (such as members of a particular occupation, nationality, or ethnicity), and then take surveys to determine their views of the groups as a whole. Often the participants may be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_attribution_error broken up into separate test groups, some of which are given statistics about the group that directly contradict what they were presented in the case study. Others may even be told directly that the individual in the case study was atypical for the group as a whole. Researchers use the surveys to determine to what extent the participants allowed their views of the individual in the case study to influence their views of the group as a whole and also take note of how effective the statistics were in deterring this group attribution error. Ruth Hamill, Richard E. Nisbett, and Timothy DeCamp Wilson were the first to study this form of group attribution error in detail in their 1980 paper Insensitivity to Sample Bias: Generalizing From Atypical Cases. In their study, the researchers provided participants with a case study about an individual welfare recipient. Half of the participants were given statistics showing that the individual was typical for a welfare recipient and had been on the program for the typical amount of time, while the other half of participants were given stat
This article relies too much on references to primary sources. Please improve this by adding secondary or tertiary sources. (February 2015) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_attribution_error This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2015) (Learn how and when to remove this http://www.psychwiki.com/wiki/The_Fundamental_Attribution_Error template message) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) The ultimate attribution error is a group-level attribution error that offers an explanation for how one person views different causes of negative attribution error and positive behavior in ingroup and outgroup members.[1] Contents 1 Definition 2 Overview 3 Explaining away positive behavior of outgroup members 3.1 Exceptional case 3.2 Luck or special advantage 3.3 Highly motivated 3.4 Situational 4 Evidence 5 See also 6 References Definition[edit] Ultimate attribution error is the tendency to internally attribute negative outgroup and positive ingroup behaviour and to externally attribute positive outgroup and negative ingroup behaviour. attribution error wiki So in other words, ultimate attribution error arises as a way to explain an outgroup's negative behaviour as flaws in their personality, and to explain an outgroup's positive behaviour as a result of chance or circumstance. It is also the belief that positive acts performed by ingroup members are as a result of their personality, whereas, if an ingroup member behaves negatively (which is believed to be rare), it is a result of situational factors.[2] Overview[edit] The ultimate attribution error was first established by Thomas F. Pettigrew in his 1979 publication "The Ultimate Attribution Error: Extending Allport's Cognitive Analysis of Prejudice".[1] As the title suggests, the ultimate attribution error is a theoretical extension of Gordon Allport's work in attribution theory. The ultimate attribution error is a systematic patterning of intergroup misattributions shaped in part by one's prejudices. Prejudiced individuals are more likely to attribute an outgroup member's negative behaviors to dispositional, internal (possibly genetically determined), causes. These same prejudiced individuals are also more likely to attribute outgroup member's positive behaviours to (a) "exceptional case", (b) fluke or special advantage, (c) high levels of motivation, or (d) situational context causes. Through these explanations, a prejudiced individual may disassociate a positive beh
describes the tendency for observer’s to attribute other people’s behavior to internal or dispositional factors and to downplay situational causes (Gilbert & Malone, 1995). Every day people make causal explanations for their own and others’ behavior, as well as for events in general. These explanations, or attributions, are a crucial form of information processing that help explain the situations and behavior occurring in the world around us (Kazdin, 2000). Psychologists have come up with multiple attribution theories to describe the different ways people use various pieces of information when trying to explain particular events. According to research, humans actively engage in attribution methods because they have an innate desire to understand, predict, and control what’s going on around them (Forgas, 1998). In doing so, people’s ability to know, and, in some ways, control the social world around them is enhanced. When determining what caused a particular event the observer focuses on either the internal or external factors that are present. The personality, abilities, and traits of the person involved are all classified as internal while environmental constraints, other people’s actions, and properties of the situation are external (Reeder, 1982). Most of the time, when trying to explain what happens in social settings, people tend to view the behavior of the actor, or person involved in the situation, as an extremely significant factor. As a result, observers tend to explain behavior in terms of the actors internal disposition rather than the external situational factors (Kazdin, 2000). This inclination to over exaggerate the influence of behavior, personality traits, motives, etc. and underestimate the power of external factors in a given situation is known as the fundamental attribution error or FAE (Amabile, Ross, and Steinmetz, 1977). The fundamental attribution error has been studied and observed in real-life situations as well as psychology experiments. Researchers have determined a few explanations for the occurrence of the FAE however, its causes and consequences remain poorly understood (Gilbert & Malone, 1995). Often