Fundamental Attribution Error

Today, I will illustrate the term "fundamental attribution error", starting off with a hopefully familiar image from the comic strip "Peanuts".



In social psychology, the fundamental attribution error (also known as correspondence bias or attribution effect) describes the tendency to over-value dispositional or personality-based explanations for the observed behaviors of others while under-valuing situational explanations for those behaviors. The fundamental attribution error is most visible when people explain the behavior of others. It does not explain interpretations of one's own behavior—where situational factors are often taken into consideration. This discrepancy is called the actor–observer bias.



Explanations:
1.Just-world phenomenon:2.Salience of the actor:3.Lack of effortful adjustment:

Good examples:
Sekundes:

I'm the bottom guy when driving, top guy the rest of the time.

I drive a lot with work though, and most of the time its close to the end of the day and I am tired and irritated.

Only time I get a bit rash is when people ride my bumper and weave incessantly in and out of traffic. But I feel that is different from this situationally though.
:D
But yeah I am a defensive driver either way.
I do slow down on purpose sometimes though. :D

Very interesting. I'll admit that I probably make this mistake far more than I should. I've never thought about it in depth.

I just find that to be dangerous, not necessarily because the driver doing it is dangerous, but more for the fact that something could go wrong quite easily with that method...like someone breaking unexpectedly..etc

Ill or not, the driver of the red car should get off the road and out of my way. I'm to busy to "feel" anything for him.

I always drive under the assumption that everyone else is a terrible driver.

Sort of on topic, I feel driving is a poor example. You shouldn't be driving if you're so ill that you can't maintain control of a vehicle. There are always a few exceptions, of course, but I think in general, you can attribute poor driving to poor drivers.

I'd say it illustrates the point quite well regardless of the errors of the example. Being a defensive driver is tried and true either way. :D
Unless you gain the ability to mind control other drivers to tell them to get off the road when you drive by. ;)
That and it's highly situation so erring in the frame of caution is much more effective rather than being aggressive...I think. :D

One day!

I don't understand. Like, in the driving example: What evidence is there that people with that negative behavior are more likely to ill rather than just bad drivers? Both reactions are evaluations of the other person based on very little observation.

Why is assuming them to be a bad driver any worse than assuming they're sick? Either way, you have to reach your destination and that person is some kind of obstacle.

OR... is it the temperament the key part? Because if so, wouldn't it be better to show the same evaluation of the driver? Like:

"Something is wrong with that driver." vs "What the hell is wrong with you!?!?!"

BUT! If that's the case, I don't really see any kind of significant difference between what is actually happening with the following driver.

Help me out!

I think temperament is the key.
Rather than getting pissed and let's say flipping the person the bird, you drive around them taking a wide berth in the case that they are just a bad driver they might accidentally hit you...just being careful really.

Essentially the way I see it the least amount of though invading assumptions the better.
Let's say instead of the driver being slow the person slammed on their breaks....in that case I'd say passing them but not heckling them would still be the most optimal solution..but I again am a defensive driver.

The peanuts example is a bit better of an example, I just pulled the driving image off of google images and it looked okay at face value lol.

It's blaming the actions/behaviour of someone on something dispositional as opposed to something situational.

"Hey, that guy has total trash for gear."

Dispositional: He must have downs and not know how to gear

Situational: He must like the way it looks. Or maybe, he was just hacked and this is the best he can do for the moment.

Not sure if that's a good example.

Situational could be: He didn't have an account for X amount of time, he just joined, they may be a few signed gifts...etc
Though many of those would bring out more assumptions.

Hmmm...
How 'bout someone is 1 manning an NM stops moving all of a sudden and then dies.
Situational: Their dog just died, he almost poo-ed/pissed on themselves, dog disconnected controller.
Dispositional:what a noob, he doesn't know how to solo.

People driving behind me in my neighborhood hate me. /blush. Well, we live a block away from a city park, a block from an elementary school, a few blocks from a library, and a few blocks from a middle school, and in the middle of a residential area with lots of small children. The speed limit is 30. I've had kids dart out in front of my car before, so I am really nervous about going 30 in this area. I go 25, and it ticks the people behind me off to all hell. I feel sorry for them... but I'm not speeding up for them and risking a child's life. If they are in that big of a rush, they should have left their house sooner. :/

I don't think this is about which conclusion is most often correct. It's about the difference between the viewpoints of the person doing something, and the third party observer. Most often the person in question blames the situation, and the observer blames the person (or makes generalizations about said person based on the action).

When you gotta go you gotta go.

Okay, ya, Vinvv, that would be better.

This is one of the very few things I remember from my psych class

I remember reading it's more prominent in Western culture too /shrug

This one sounds about right.

Nice info. To add to it a little...

Regardless of the example, it's how you think about it that is the point. People tend to make excuses for their actions or mistakes and can justify it with the situation they are in. But with others they often just blame the person because they rarely know the situation.

Here's an example of this for me. I didn't submit my homework on time last night for my online class. The teacher probably thinks I'm poor at time management and choose to mess around for several hours instead of doing it and turning it in. In actuality my daughter was sick and throwing up all over the place so my wife and I got to spend hours tending to her, monitoring her condition, fetching various things and scrubbing bits of dinner out of our carpet. I justify my tardiness because of the situation, be it legitimate or not.

Many people will take the time and think in another person's shoes but even if you're the nice type who assumes that it was the situation rather than the person are making just as large assumption as the people who instantly blame the person.

Oh ok, so the important part is something like,

"This person is driving bad right now."

vs

"This person is (always) a bad driver."

What's strange to me, though, is that if I put myself into that spot and go through each way of thinking, I don't think of the person any differently. Whether it's an older lady driving cautiously or someone not paying attention and texting while driving, they are both in my way just as much.

I'm not saying that a road rage kind of reaction is called for - although I'm definitely guilty of it, from time to time - just that if I do react that way, and later find out the A. the reason for it, or B. that overall, they are a swell person, I don't hold that against them. At the same time, if I am just out for a drive, and there is someone driving like that, but I act the second way, and that is the sum of my experience with that person, it's still a negative one.

If that makes any sense! :D



OH, gotcha. I think that for me, I usually don't care enough either way. I really only care about what I need to do to get to work, or in your example, what we can do to get the paper turned in, if late.

I guess that shows a lack of empathy on my part... I can't really deny that, but at the same time, I feel like when it's called for, I am very empathetic and compassionate... I am more lost now than before. :)

It makes sense...Fundamental Attribution Error is something that effects us on all levels, so even just attributing a small thing without getting pissed would still be a fundamental attribution error.
It's one of those things that our brains are just wired to do by default without a certain level of thinking about the instance.

Driving also gives you a bit of anonymity and it is easy to become a different person when you drive. It's easier to just label someone as "that idiot in that blue car".

Reminds me of this.
http://xkcd.com/873/

Got another good one. This may not necessarily be Fundamental Attribution Error technically, but it's still an interesting exercise.
Citing an interesting question of a book I'm reading called "Thinking, Fast and Slow"

I feel like theres is more to Steve then you are letting on... Of the 2 I'd say librarian, idk why it's just the first that comes to mind.

When I first thought about it, I'd say librarian simply because they tend to be organized and introverts. But the more I think about it with my personal experience of having lived out in the country around farmers, they are both accurate descriptions and I wouldn't go with either one more than the other.

Steve is clearly a MMORPG enthusiast.

This is tough, because to me, the description "wants" us to pick librarian. However, of the farmer's I've met, they also tend to be helpful and keep to themselves. (Maybe by design or as a result of living a somewhat secluded lifestyle.) And I know that an awful lot more than "plant, water, harvest" goes into farming. So it could really be either.

But that's the point, right? We're not supposed to know based on that... which isn't fair because the question literally asks us to do just that.

Or maybe he's a librarian, but only because farmer's live far away from other people... :D (Guess that depends on one's definition of neighbor, and, there I go assuming all farmers have to live and work on large farms...)