Fundamental Attribution Error Wiki
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) fundamental attribution error definition (Learn how and when to remove this template message) This article relies too
Fundamental Attribution Error Examples
much on references to primary sources. Please improve this by adding secondary or tertiary sources. (February 2015) (Learn how and defensive attribution 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
Ultimate Attribution Error
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 2 Details 3 Classic demonstration study: Jones and Harris (1967) 4 Explanations 5 fundamental attribution error quizlet 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 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 believ
of original research should be removed. (February 2015) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) In social psychology, attribution is the process by which individuals explain the causes
The Fundamental Attribution Error Refers To The Tendency Of
of behavior and events. Attribution theory is the study of models to
The Fundamental Attribution Error Is Less Likely
explain those processes.[1] Psychological research into attribution began with the work of Fritz Heider in the early part dispositional attribution of the 20th century, subsequently developed by others such as Harold Kelley and Bernard Weiner. Contents 1 Background 2 Types 2.1 External attribution 2.2 Internal attribution 3 Theories 3.1 Common sense https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error psychology 3.2 Correspondent inference theory 3.3 Covariation model 3.4 Three-dimensional model 4 Bias and errors 4.1 Fundamental attribution error 4.2 Culture bias 4.3 Actor/observer difference 4.4 Dispositional attributions 4.5 Self-serving bias 4.6 Defensive attribution hypothesis 5 Application 6 In clinical psychology 6.1 Learned helplessness 7 Perceptual salience 8 Criticism 9 See also 10 References 11 Further reading Background[edit] Gestalt psychologist Fritz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_(psychology) Heider is often described as the "father of attribution theory",[2] during the early years of the 20th century. In his 1920's dissertation Heider addressed the problem of phenomenology: why do perceivers attribute the properties such as color to perceived objects, when those properties are mental constructs? Heider's answer that perceivers attribute that which they "directly" sense – vibrations in the air for instance – to an object they construe as causing those sense data. "Perceivers faced with sensory data thus see the perceptual object as 'out there', because they attribute the sensory data to their underlying causes in the world."[3] Heider extended this idea to attributions about people: "motives, intentions, sentiments... the core processes which manifest themselves in overt behavior".[4] Types[edit] External attribution[edit] External attribution, also called situational attribution, refers to interpreting someone's behavior as being caused by the situation that the individual is in. For example, if Jacob's car tire is punctured he may attribute that to a hole in the road; by making attributions to the poor condition of the highway, he can make sense of the event withou
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) This article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_attribution_error 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 template message) http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/fundamental_attribution_error.htm (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 and positive behavior attribution error 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. So in other words, ultimate fundamental attribution error 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 behavior from an outgroup individual and their group. In comparison, on
Example | So What? | See also | References Description When we are trying to understand and explain what happens in social settings, we tend to view behavior as a particularly significant factor. We then tend to explain behavior in terms of internal disposition, such as personality traits, abilities, motives, etc. as opposed to external situational factors. This can be due to our focus on the person more than their situation, about which we may know very little. We also know little about how they are interpreting the situation. Western culture exacerbates this error, as we emphasize individual freedom and autonomy and are socialized to prefer dispositional factors to situational ones. When we are playing the role of observer, which is largely when we look at others, we make this fundamental attribution error. When we are thinking about ourselves, however, we will tend to make situational attributions. Research Edward Jones and Victor Harris (1967) asked people to assess a person's pro- or anti-Castro feelings given an essay a person had written. Even when the people were told the person had been directed to write pro- or anti- arguments, the people still assumed the author believed what they were writing. Example I assume you have not done much today because you are lazy, rather than perhaps tired or lack the right resources. So what? Using it Beware of people blaming you for things outside of your control. Also watch out for people doing it to you. You can make friends and build trust when individuals are blamed by others, by showing that you understand how it is not to do with their personality. Defending Watch how others make attributions. When they seem to go against the trend and be in your favor, be curious about their motives. See also Actor-Observer Difference, Attribution Theory, Cor