Funamental Attribution Error
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 be removed. (February 2015) (Learn how and when to remove this template
Fundamental Attribution Error Examples
message) This article relies too much on references to primary sources. Please improve this by fundamental attribution error definition adding secondary or tertiary sources. (February 2015) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) (Learn how and when to remove this
Fundamental Attribution Error Quizlet
template message) In social psychology, the fundamental attribution error, also known 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), ultimate attribution error 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 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 defensive attribution 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 reckless attitude). Another example relates to a slippery path: A traveler carefully walks down a sloped path in the rain. The traveler slips and falls. The traveler believes this is a slippery path. The traveler continues more carefully. At the bottom of the slope, the traveler rests while waiting for the rain to stop. The traveler sees another person carefully walking down the sloped path. The traveler sees that person slip on the path. The traveler believes tha
art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information. Correspondence Bias 40 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 25 June 2007 12:58AM The correspondence bias is the tendency to draw inferences about a
The Fundamental Attribution Error Is Less Likely
person's unique and enduring dispositions from behaviors that can be entirely explained by the fundamental attribution error refers to the tendency of the situations in which they occur. —Gilbert and Malone We tend to see far too direct a correspondence between others'
Fundamental Attribution Theory Definition
actions and personalities. When we see someone else kick a vending machine for no visible reason, we assume they are "an angry person". But when you yourself kick the vending machine, it's because https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error the bus was late, the train was early, your report is overdue, and now the damned vending machine has eaten your lunch money for the second day in a row. Surely, you think to yourself, anyone would kick the vending machine, in that situation. We attribute our own actions to our situations, seeing our behaviors as perfectly normal responses to experience. But when someone else kicks http://lesswrong.com/lw/hz/correspondence_bias/ a vending machine, we don't see their past history trailing behind them in the air. We just see the kick, for no reason we know about, and we think this must be a naturally angry person—since they lashed out without any provocation. Yet consider the prior probabilities. There are more late buses in the world, than mutants born with unnaturally high anger levels that cause them to sometimes spontaneously kick vending machines. Now the average human is, in fact, a mutant. If I recall correctly, an average individual has 2-10 somatically expressed mutations. But any given DNA location is very unlikely to be affected. Similarly, any given aspect of someone's disposition is probably not very far from average. To suggest otherwise is to shoulder a burden of improbability. Even when people are informed explicitly of situational causes, they don't seem to properly discount the observed behavior. When subjects are told that a pro-abortion or anti-abortion speaker was randomly assigned to give a speech on that position, subjects still think the speakers harbor leanings in the direction randomly assigned. (Jones and Harris 1967, "The attribution of attitudes.) It seems quite intuitive to explain rain by water spirits; ex
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 be removed. (February 2015) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) This article relies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error 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) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) In social psychology, the fundamental attribution error, also known 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 attribution error 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 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 fundamental attribution error 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 reckless attitude). Another example relates to a slippery path: A traveler carefully walks down a sloped path in the rain. The traveler slips and falls. The traveler believes this is a slippery path. The traveler continues more carefully. At the bottom of the slope, the traveler rests while waiting for the rain to stop. The traveler sees another person carefully walking down the sloped path. The traveler sees that person slip on the path. The traveler believes that person is clumsy. Details[edit] The phrase was coined by Lee Ross[1] some years after a classic experiment by Edward E. Jones and Victor