Attribution Error Wikipedia
Contents |
messages) This article possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should wiki fundamental attribution error be removed. (February 2015) (Learn how and when to remove this template
Self Attribution Error
message) This article relies too much on references to primary sources. Please improve this by adding secondary or wikipedia cognitive dissonance tertiary sources. (February 2015) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) In social psychology, the fundamental attribution error, also known wikipedia halo effect as the correspondence bias or attribution effect, is the tendency for people to place an undue emphasis on internal characteristics of the agent (character or intention), rather than external factors, in explaining another person's behavior in a given situation. This contrasts with interpreting one's own behavior, where situational factors are more easily recognized and can be taken into account. Contents 1 Examples
Wikipedia Confirmation Bias
2 Details 3 Classic demonstration study: Jones and Harris (1967) 4 Explanations 5 Cultural differences in the error 6 Versus correspondence bias 7 See also 7.1 Cognitive biases 8 References 9 Further reading 10 External links Examples[edit] As a simple example, consider a situation where Alice, a driver, is about to pass through an intersection. Her light turns green and she begins to accelerate, but another car drives through the red light and crosses in front of her. The fundamental attribution error may lead her to think that the driver of the other car was an unskilled or reckless driver. This will be an error if the other driver had a good reason for running the light, such as rushing a patient to the hospital. If this is the case and Alice had been driving the other car, she would have understood that the situation called for speed at the cost of safety, but when seeing it from the outside she was inclined to believe that the behavior of the other driver reflected their fundamental nature (having poor driving skills or a r
(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 the preferences of individual group members, even when information is available suggesting otherwise. The fundamental attribution error wikipedia self fulfilling prophecy is similar in that it refers to the tendency to believe that an individual's actions are wikipedia attitude representative of the individual's preferences, even when available information suggests that the actions were caused by outside forces. Contents 1 Type I 2
Wikipedia Bystander Effect
Type II 3 Limitation 4 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error 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 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_attribution_error 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 statistics showing that the welfare recipient had been on the program much longer than normal. The results of the study revealed that participants did indeed draw extremely negative opinions of all welfare recipients as a result of the case study. It was also found that the differences in statistics provided to the two groups had trivial to no effect on the level of group attribution error.[1] Type II[edit] The second form of group attribution error was first reported by Scott Allison and David Messick in 1985. In their study the researchers did multiple experiments presenting participants with group decisions made on the nat
in an overly favorable manner.[1] It is the belief that individuals tend to ascribe success to their own https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-serving_bias abilities and efforts, but ascribe failure to external factors.[2] When individuals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispositional_attribution reject the validity of negative feedback, focus on their strengths and achievements but overlook their faults and failures, or take more responsibility for their group's work than they give to other members, they are protecting the ego from threat and injury. These cognitive attribution error and perceptual tendencies perpetuate illusions and error, but they also serve the self's need for esteem.[3] For example, a student who attributes earning a good grade on an exam to their own intelligence and preparation but attributes earning a poor grade to the teacher's poor teaching ability or unfair test questions is exhibiting the attribution error wikipedia self-serving bias. Studies have shown that similar attributions are made in various situations, such as the workplace,[4] interpersonal relationships,[5] sports,[6] and consumer decisions.[7] Both motivational processes (i.e. self-enhancement, self-presentation) and cognitive processes (i.e. locus of control, self-esteem) influence the self-serving bias.[8] There are both cross-cultural (i.e. individualistic and collectivistic culture differences) and special clinical population (i.e. depression) considerations within the bias.[9][10] Much of the research on the self-serving bias has used participant self-reports of attribution based on experimental manipulation of task outcomes or in naturalistic situations.[2] Some more modern research, however, has shifted focus to physiological manipulations, such as emotional inducement and neural activation, in an attempt to better understand the biological mechanisms that contribute to the self-serving bias.[11][12] Contents 1 History 2 Methods 2.1 Laboratory testing 2.2 Neural experimentation 2.3 Naturalistic investigation 3 Factors and variables 3.1 Motivation 3.2 Locus of control 3.3 Gender 3.4 Age 3.5 Culture 3.6 Role 3.7 Self-esteem and emotion 3.8 Self-awareness and probability of improvem
the explanation of individual behavior as a result caused by internal characteristics that reside within the individual, as opposed to external (situational) influences that stem from the environment or culture in which that individual is found. Dispositionalism is the general tendency to prefer dispositional attribution rather than situational attribution.[1] Another term for dispositional attribution is internal attribution. Internal attribution refers to inferring that personal factors are the cause of an event or behavior. Attributions refer to influences that you make regarding what caused an event or behavior and they are your attempt at understanding your experiences, behaviors, and the behaviors of others. When we use internal attributions,[2] we infer that a person is behaving in a certain way or that an event is due to factors related to the person. Internal attribution is defined as the act of placing blame on some type of factor or criteria that could be controlled by an individual for the cause of a certain event.[3] When making an internal attribution, we infer that an event or a person's behavior directly correlates to personal factors such as traits, abilities, or feelings.[4] A simplified example of this can be shown when a woman is paying for her groceries at the cash register. When a cashier is short with her at the grocery store, the woman decides he must be a rude and crabby person all the time. Internal attribution is how we attach meaning to other's behaviors and even our own. For example, dispositional optimism is a tendency that applies generally across situations, but situational optimism is having hope and expecting a good outcome in a specific situation. This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (June 2008) See also[edit] Attribution bias Attribution theory Fundamental attribution error Nature and nurture Stanford prison experiment References[edit] ^ Douglas S. Krull (2001). "On Partitioning the Fundamental Attribution Error: Dispositionalism and the Correspondence Bias". Cognitive Social Psychology: the Princeton Symposium on the Legacy and Future of Social Cognition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: 211. ISBN978-0-8058-3