Discuss two errors in attribution free essay sample

Attribution, defined as assigning a quality or character to a person or an object, in the context of Psychology, refers to the classification of factors that affect behaviour. Behaviour is attributed to either or both dispositional factors and situational factors. Dispositional factors refer to the internal causes of an individual’s behaviour, whilst situational factors deal with the external causes of behaviour which can include the social setting and environment. Two common errors of attribution are the Fundamental attribution error (FAE) and Self-serving bias (SSB). Fundamental attribution error is a term used to refer to a bias to attribute other people’s behaviour to internal causes rather than external circumstances. If people behave kindly towards us with a warm gesture we immediately assume and conclude that they have a kind personality whilst if they behave in ways that seem impolite to us (perhaps not greet us at all) we tend to think of them as rude. We will write a custom essay sample on Discuss two errors in attribution or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page Instead of acknowledging the important role played by situational determinants of behaviour, we assume that other people’s behaviour reflects their dispositions. A study that demonstrates the (FAE) is Jones and Harris (1967). These researchers asked their participants to read essays written by fellow students which were about Fidel Castro’s rule in Cuba and were either supportive or critical of Castro. There were two conditions- the choice condition and the no choice condition. The choice condition was that a group of the participants were told the essayists were given the choice whether to take a positive or negative view of Castro whilst in the no choice condition, another group of the participants were told that the essayist did not have any choice and that the experimenter had assigned them in the pro-Castro or anti-Castro role. As expected, participants in the choice condition assumed that the essays reflected the genuine attitudes of their writers. However, participants in the no choice condition also thought that the essays reflected the genuine views of their authors. Despite the fact that it was made clear that the essayists’ behaviour was severely constrained by the situation, participants still opted for an internal attribution. This study in itself is evidence for (FAE). Although research has shown that people make the fundamental attribution error even if the conditions are told beforehand, in many situations the participants are university students therefore they do not  represent the general population and also university students are familiar with authoritative figures. It is possible that these students have assumed these researchers are a lot more intelligent therefore leading them to only listening and not questioning the researchers. This may suggest that it may not be the (FAE). Gilbert and Malone (1995) argue that FAE is a two-step attribution process. The first step is that we observe some behaviour and draw an inference, based on largely automatic and often unconscious processing, that the behaviour has been caused by some disposition. The second step involves us enquiring into whether or not situational factors may have had an influence on the behaviour. According to Gilbert and Malone (1995) we make the (FAE) as often as we do because the first step always forms part of the attribution process but only occasionally do we proceed to the second step. Basically, we commit the FAE because we are mentally lazy and believe the initial step alone can result in the correct explanation. 1 The second error in attribution is self-serving bias. Our attributions exhibit the self-serving bias when we explain our successes on the basis of internal, dispositional factors and blame our failures to external, situational factors. Such biased attributions are viewed as serving the interest of preserving or increasing self-esteem. Zuckerman (1979) reviewed a number of studies of (SSB) and confirmed that the effect depends on a desire to maintain self-esteem. Evidence from cross-cultural studies is consistent with this interpretation. Heine et al. (1999) found that members of collectivistic cultures (e.g. Japan) are far less likely to strive for positive self-esteem than individuals from individualistic cultures (e.g. USA). Consequently, the Japanese were found to be less likely to make self-serving attributions. Contrastingly, Miller and Ross (1975) proposed that several uses of self-serving attributions are rational and not based on the need to enhance self-esteem. They argue that what seem to be self-serving biases often occur because effort changes with success but not failure. If trying harder does not improve performance, then it is reasonable to conclude that something about the task is presenting the obstacle. However, if trying harder does improve performance, then success  is logically attributable to your trying. To conclude, these two common errors of attribution are what have influenced our understanding of the factors influencing behaviour.