Why did they do that? Attributions and their biases

Transcript

RyanFriday evening, a busy coffee shop. A man reaches the counter, the barista gets his order wrong, and he snaps at her. Loudly. Everyone in line goes quiet.

SoheeAnd I'd bet most people in that line have already decided something about him. Rude. Entitled. Not a nice person.

RyanWhat none of them know is that he's just come from the hospital, where his father was admitted an hour ago.

SoheeWelcome to EPPP Prep, the podcast. I'm Sohee.

RyanAnd I'm Ryan. Today we're opening Domain 3, the social and cultural bases of behavior, with one of its most tested ideas: how we explain why people do what they do.

SoheePsychologists call those explanations attributions. And the coffee shop is a perfect example of the most famous mistake we make with them.

RyanLet's set up the two big options first. The OpenStax psychology textbook describes situationism, the view that our behavior is determined by our immediate environment and surroundings.

SoheeAnd dispositionism, the view that behavior is determined by internal factors. An internal factor is an attribute of the person, like personality traits and temperament.

RyanHistorically, social psychologists leaned situational and personality psychologists leaned dispositional. Modern approaches take both into account.

SoheeSo here's the mistake. People tend to overemphasize internal factors when explaining other people's behavior, and underestimate the power of the situation. That's the fundamental attribution error.

RyanNotice the target. It's about explaining someone else. The man at the counter gets a trait label, rude, while the situation, a frightening day at the hospital, is invisible.

SoheeAnd the classic demonstration is the quizmaster study, by Ross, Amabile and Steinmetz in 1977. Can you walk us through it?

RyanStudents were randomly assigned to be a questioner or a contestant in a quiz game. The questioners wrote hard questions they knew the answers to. The contestants got them right only 4 out of 10 times.

SoheeAnd then the twist.

RyanAfterward, the contestants rated the questioners' intelligence higher than their own. In a second study, observers watching the game also rated the questioner as more knowledgeable.

SoheeEven though the advantage was built into the role. Of course the person who wrote the questions looks smart. The situation explains it completely, and people still credited ability.

RyanThat's the deep lesson. The error is so strong that people miss situational influences that are obvious once you point them out.

SoheeI do want to add some balance, because the textbook does. A review of more than 173 published studies, by Malle in 2006, suggested the error may not be as powerful as it's often portrayed. Several factors affect how strong it is.

RyanGood. And culture is one of the biggest factors. Research suggests people from individualistic cultures, which focus on individual achievement and autonomy, have the greatest tendency to commit the fundamental attribution error.

SoheeWhile people from collectivistic cultures, which focus on communal relationships with family, friends and community, are less likely to commit it.

RyanThe textbook contrasts the two. Individualistic cultures lean toward a dispositional perspective and an analytic thinking style. Collectivistic cultures lean toward a situational perspective and a holistic style.

SoheeThere's a lovely study on that holistic style. Masuda and Nisbett showed people an aquarium scene. Japanese participants were much more likely to recognize objects when they appeared in the same context as before. Changing the context had no such impact on American participants.

RyanSo for a holistic thinker, the background is part of the picture. Which makes it easier to see the situation behind someone's behavior.

SoheeNow let's add the cousin of the fundamental attribution error, because exams love to put them side by side. Actor-observer bias.

RyanActor-observer bias is attributing other people's behavior to internal factors, while attributing our own behavior to situational forces.

SoheeSo it's a comparison. When I snap at a barista, I was exhausted and scared. When you snap at a barista, you're rude.

RyanAnd the reason is information. As the actor, I know about my day, my hospital visit, my lack of sleep. As an observer of you, all I have is what I can see. So I default to disposition.

SoheeThere's a nice study by Nisbett and colleagues in 1973. Men asked why they liked their own girlfriend pointed to her qualities, like her pleasant personality. Asked why a friend liked his girlfriend, they gave dispositional and external explanations about equally.

RyanNow the third one. Self-serving bias. This is the tendency to explain our successes by our own internal characteristics, and our failures by situational, external factors.

SoheeI aced the exam because I'm smart. I failed it because the questions were unfair.

RyanExactly. The textbook says this bias serves to protect self-esteem. And it notes, again, that it's culture dependent.

SoheeHere's where a model from Weiner in 1979 helps. Attributions have three dimensions. Locus of control, internal versus external. Stability, stable versus unstable. And controllability.

RyanAnd the sports research shows all three at once. When our favorite team wins, we make internal, stable and controllable attributions. Talented, always works hard, smart strategy.

SoheeWhen the team loses, it's external, unstable and uncontrollable. The referees were unfair, the other team had home field, the cold weather got to us.

RyanOne more attribution idea with real consequences. The just-world hypothesis. The belief that people get the outcomes they deserve, from Lerner and Miller.

SoheeWhy do people hold onto it?

RyanThe textbook says believing the world is fair makes it feel predictable, and gives us a sense of control over our own outcomes. If good people get good outcomes, I just need to be good and work hard.

SoheeAnd the cost is victim blame. Blaming people in poverty for their situation while ignoring things like unemployment, recession and poor educational opportunities. The textbook also notes that victims of sexual assault may find themselves blamed for their abuse.

RyanWhich is a dispositional explanation again. So the just-world belief and the fundamental attribution error work together.

SoheeLet's go one level deeper, into how we decide between internal and external at all. Harold Kelley, building on Fritz Heider, said we look at three cues.

RyanConsensus: do other people behave the same way in this situation? Consistency: does this person behave this way on other occasions in the same situation? And distinctiveness: does this person behave this way across different situations, or only in this one?

SoheeAnd the combinations matter. High consensus, high consistency and high distinctiveness point to an external cause. Low consensus, high consistency and low distinctiveness point to an internal cause.

RyanOkay, pause and think. Your coworker complains about the cafeteria food every single day. Everyone else in the office complains about it too. And he doesn't complain about anything else.

SoheeEveryone complains, that's high consensus. Every day, high consistency. Only the food, high distinctiveness. So the cause is external. It's the food, not him.

RyanNow, how does the exam test all this? Usually with a short story and four labels that sound alike. Our practice item bank uses fundamental attribution error, self-serving bias, false consensus effect and cognitive dissonance.

SoheeSo let's sort them. Fundamental attribution error: judging another person's character while a clear situational cause is overlooked. Watch for trait words. Lazy, careless, unmotivated, rude.

RyanSelf-serving bias: explaining your own successes and failures. False consensus: overestimating how many people share your views. Cognitive dissonance: discomfort from holding inconsistent cognitions.

SoheeAnd actor-observer bias needs both sides. The person explains their own behavior by the situation and someone else's by character.

RyanPause and think, one more. A nursing student fails a skills check and says the evaluator was in a bad mood. The month before, she passed and said it was because she's a natural. Which bias?

SoheeSelf-serving bias. It's her own outcomes, success credited inside, failure blamed outside. Nobody else's character is being judged, so it's not the fundamental attribution error.

RyanLet's pull it together. Situationism looks to the environment, dispositionism to traits and temperament.

SoheeThe fundamental attribution error: overweighting character and underweighting the situation when we explain others. The quizmaster study showed it, and individualistic cultures show it most.

RyanActor-observer bias: situation for me, character for you. Self-serving bias: my wins are me, my losses are the world. Weiner's dimensions: locus, stability, controllability.

SoheeThe just-world hypothesis feeds victim blame. And Kelley's cues: high consensus, consistency and distinctiveness mean external.

RyanOne last thought. If you've had a hard result on this exam, it's easy to explain it entirely by your character. But you know better now. Situations are powerful, and so is preparation.

SoheeGive a few attribution questions a try while this is fresh. Thanks for listening to EPPP Prep.

Loading the read-along timings…