Fundamental Attribution Error: Why You Make Bad Choices in Life

1. What is causal attribution
2. What is the fundamental attribution error?
3. Why We're Subject to a Fundamental Fallacy

The fundamental attribution error (sometimes the fundamental error of causal attribution ) is an interesting phenomenon in psychology, characteristic of the vast majority of people (of course, some to a greater extent, some to a lesser extent). Understanding what this mistake is will allow you to more adequately evaluate your own judgments about other people, better understand how they see our actions, and also analyze your successes and failures differently. However, before moving on to the error itself, let’s define what is meant in this case by causal attribution .

Types of causal attribution

Wikipedia defines the term as follows: causal attribution (from Latin causa - cause, Latin attributio - attribution) - a phenomenon of interpersonal perception. It consists of interpreting, attributing reasons for another person’s actions in conditions of a lack of information about the actual reasons for his actions.

Trying to find the reasons for other people's behavior, people often fall into the traps of prejudice and error. As Fritz Heider said: “Our perception of causality is often distorted by our needs and certain cognitive distortions.”

Here are examples of cognitive distortions due to causal attribution.

Fundamental attribution error

The fundamental attribution error is the explanation of other people’s actions by internal factors (“this person is a bore” – internal disposition), and one’s own actions by external circumstances (“events unfolded in such a way that I could not have done anything differently” – external disposition). It becomes most obvious when people explain and assume the behavior of others.

Reasons for fundamental attribution:

• Unequal opportunities: ignoring the characteristics determined by the role position.
• False agreement: viewing one's behavior as typical and behavior that differs from it as abnormal.
• More trust in facts than in judgments.
• Ignoring the informational value of what did not happen: what was not done should also be the basis for evaluating behavior.

Example one: your friend failed the exam that you both took. He always seemed to have a low level of knowledge. You begin to think that he is lazy, doing everything but studying. However, it is possible that he has problems remembering information or some difficult circumstances in the family that interfere with preparing for exams.

Example two: a stranger’s car won’t start. You decide to help him by giving him some practical advice. He disagrees with them or simply ignores them. You become angry and begin to perceive this person as rude and rejecting sincere help. However, he's probably been given the same advice before and it didn't work. After all, he just knows his car better. Or he was having a bad day.

Note that we are talking about internal disposition. If we talk about external ones, then if you do not pass the exam, then, most likely, you will explain this not by the low level of your knowledge, but by bad luck - you got the most difficult ticket. And if your car doesn’t start, then the person who is trying to help/being smart, even though he wasn’t asked, will be to blame.

External disposition is not necessarily bad. This is to some extent a defense mechanism because you don’t feel guilty, don’t spoil your mood and look at the world optimistically. But it can also lead to a constant search for excuses and personality degradation.

Cultural prejudice

It occurs when someone makes assumptions about a person's behavior based on their cultural practices, background, and beliefs. For example, people from Western countries are considered to be individualists, while Asians are collectivists. Well, you’ve probably heard more than one joke about Jews, Armenian radio and representatives of many other nationalities.

Difference between participant and observer

As already noted, we tend to attribute the behavior of other people to our dispositional factors, classifying our own actions as situational. Therefore, attribution may vary from person to person depending on their role as a participant or observer - if we are the main actor, we tend to view the situation differently than when we are simply observing from the outside.

Dispositional (characteristic) attribution

It is the tendency to attribute people's behavior to their dispositions, that is, to their personality, character, and abilities. For example, when a waiter treats his customer rudely, the customer may assume that he has a bad character. There is an instant reaction: “The waiter is a bad person.”

Thus, the customer succumbed to dispositional attribution, attributing the waiter's behavior directly to his personality, without considering the situational factors that could cause this rudeness.

Self-serving attribution

When a person receives a promotion, he believes that it is due to his abilities, skills and competence. And if he doesn’t get it, then he thinks that the boss doesn’t like him (an external, uncontrollable factor).

Initially, researchers thought that the person wanted to protect their self-esteem in this way. However, later it was believed that when results meet expectations, people tend to attribute this to internal factors.

Defensive attribution hypothesis

The defensive attribution hypothesis is a social psychological term that refers to a set of beliefs that a person holds in order to protect themselves from anxiety. To put it simply: “I am not the cause of my failure.”

Defensive attributions can also be made towards other people. Let's put it in the phrase: "Good things happen to good people, and bad things happen to bad people." We believe this so we don't feel vulnerable in situations where we have no control over them.

In this case, everything goes to the extreme. When a person hears that someone was killed in a car accident, he may assume that the driver was drunk or bought a license, but this will certainly never happen to him personally.

All of the above examples of causal attribution are very similar to cognitive dissonance - a state of mental discomfort in a person caused by a clash in his mind of conflicting ideas: beliefs, ideas, emotional reactions and values. This theory was proposed by Leon Festinger. He formulates two hypotheses for this phenomenon:

1. When a person experiences dissonance, he strives with all his might to reduce the degree of discrepancy between two attitudes in order to achieve consonance, that is, correspondence. This way he gets rid of discomfort.
2. The person will avoid situations in which this discomfort may increase.

Since you got a D in the exam, why should you feel discomfort because you didn’t prepare at all, right? Not true. To understand this, let's talk about locus of control.

Why We're Subject to a Fundamental Fallacy

Almost everyone makes the fundamental attribution error. Of course, for some this is more typical (some people think exactly as we wrote above), for others it is less typical (the above formulations are softer). Moreover: for most of us this mistake is so “dear” that, even knowing about its existence, we still follow the same model

. Experts identify several explanations for this “popularity.”

One of them is this: when we talk about something that happened to us, we know in what circumstances it happened

.
But this is not always the case when we talk about situations in which others performed a similar action. For most of us, it’s easier not to delve into what actually happened, but to act according to a stereotype, to apply a label
: it’s faster and doesn’t require mental effort. In addition, we more often draw conclusions about a person’s behavior or outcome even before we know all the specifics of what happened. In addition, many hear and see only what they want to hear and see, which also does not contribute to objectivity. At the same time, when the label is already “attached”, the rest is simply adjusted to it.

As for our own behavior, then, of course, it is much more pleasant for us to find an excuse for ourselves than to openly admit

: I was late because I drank coffee for too long in the morning.
It’s better to come to the conclusion that there were traffic jams on the road, the red light came on too often, and generally snow fell, so I had to drive slower. In addition, the fundamental attribution error is a way to increase self-esteem in your own eyes
.
After all, if I succeeded in something, it’s because I’m so good. And if not, then this is the will of circumstances, what can I do against them? And in this case, this mistake can be considered not only as self-justification, but also as an incentive to try again
: last time the world was against me, but maybe this time everything will work out.

Now, when making inferences about another person's behavior, before following stereotypical explanations, remember the fundamental attribution error. Give him the opportunity to speak out, explain his point of view - and his actions may appear in a different light for you. Just don’t forget that your counterpart may also have this error. In addition, you now know one of the reasons why your explanations/excuses may be viewed with skepticism by others if they have already labeled you. And if you want to check how well you build communications with other people, use our test of communicative social competence and emotional intelligence test using the Hall method.

Causal attribution and locus of control

It should be said that causal attribution is closely related to locus of control.

Locus of control is the characteristic ability of an individual to attribute his successes or failures only to internal or only to external factors.

In the case of causal attribution, there is a double standard. Whereas locus of control shows that a person chooses his own reaction. Having received a bad mark on an exam, he can manifest this locus in two different ways:

1. It's my own fault that I got a bad grade. I didn’t prepare much, I walked around, I thought about absolutely the wrong things. I'll fix it and start right now.
2. The ticket, the difficult subject, or the teacher are to blame. If it weren't for this, I would get what I deserve.

The difference between causal attribution and locus of control is the presence of willpower in the second case.

To change your locus of control, you must first get rid of the victim syndrome. Take full responsibility even if external factors really greatly influenced the result.

Causal attribution and learned helplessness

Causal attribution, interestingly enough, is often used to understand the phenomenon of learned helplessness.

Learned/acquired helplessness is a state of a person in which he does not make attempts to improve his condition (does not try to receive positive stimuli or avoid negative ones), although he has such an opportunity. This happens when he has tried several times to change the situation but failed. And now I’m used to my helplessness.

The father of positive psychology, Martin Seligman, demonstrated in his experiments that people put less effort into solving a “solvable” problem after they had suffered a series of failures at “unsolvable” problems.

Seligman believes that people, having received unsatisfactory results, begin to think that further attempts will also not lead to anything good. But the theory of causal attribution says that people do not try to redouble their efforts in order not to lower their self-esteem, because otherwise they will attribute failure to their internal personal characteristics. If you don’t try, it’s much easier to blame external factors for everything.

Goals and results of causal attribution research

The goal of research into the mechanisms of causal attribution is to increase the effectiveness of interaction between people and the effectiveness of personal growth. The first presupposes the most accurate determination of the motives of certain actions. And the second shows options for influencing motivation, activity, emotions, etc. What most fully helps to understand the study of this phenomenon is the indication of the moment of assigning or accepting responsibility for specific actions. And a comprehensive consideration of the current result. That is, the goal of research is to find an accurate definition of the actual motives of behavior .

Errors of perception

It is known that a person treats himself more softly when assessing than other strangers. A person attributes someone’s successes and his own failures to situational attribution. But, describing other people's failures and his own successes, he turns to personal attribution. In these cases, a person tends to consider the cause of what happened to be either the prevailing circumstances or the person himself, according to the final result.

Usually a person explains success by his hard work, willpower, and his uniqueness. But failure is always associated with the situation. And if you analyze the actions of another person, then all of the above applies in reverse order. If a person achieves success, it is because the circumstances have developed that way. And if he failed, then he himself is to blame . And few people think differently. Few will pay attention to the situation and focus on it. After all, if you explain the result of a person’s activity in a different way, then this means recognizing it at your level, or even better. This means comparing him to yourself.

Therefore, people tend to protect their self-esteem in this way. It is easier to blame the circumstances, the object of the action, than to force yourself to work, to improve yourself. Causal attribution is applicable everywhere: in everyday life, at work, in relationships. And this principle of opposites operates everywhere.

Causal attribution theories

The most popular are two of them.

Jones and Davis Correspondence Theory

Scientists Jones and Davis presented a theory in 1965 that suggested that people pay special attention to intentional behavior (as opposed to random or mindless behavior).

This theory helps to understand the process of internal attribution. Scientists believed that a person is prone to making this error when he perceives inconsistencies between motive and behavior. For example, he believes that if someone behaves friendly, then he is friendly.

Dispositional (i.e. internal) attributes provide us with information from which we can make predictions about a person's future behavior. Davis used the term "correspondent inference" to refer to the case when an observer thinks that a person's behavior is consistent with his personality.

So what leads us to draw a correspondent conclusion? Jones and Davis say that we use five sources of information:

1. Choice : When behavior is freely chosen, it is said to be driven by internal (dispositional) factors.
2. Random or intentional behavior : Behavior that is intentional is more likely to be related to the person's personality, while random behavior is more likely to be related to the situation or external causes.
3. Social desirability : You observe someone sitting on the floor, even though there are empty chairs. This behavior has low social desirability (nonconformity) and is likely to be consistent with the individual's personality.
4. Hedonic relevance : when another person's behavior is directly intended to benefit or harm us.
5. Personalism : When another person's behavior seems likely to affect us, we assume that it is "personal" and not simply a by-product of the situation in which we find ourselves.

Kelly covariance model

Kelly's (1967) covariance model is the most famous attribution theory. Kelly developed a logic model for assessing whether a particular action should be attributed to a characteristic (intrinsic) motive or to the environment (extrinsic factor).

The term covariance simply means that a person has information from multiple observations at different times and in different situations and can perceive covariance between the observed effect and its causes.

He argues that in trying to discover the causes of behavior, people act like scientists. In particular, they consider three types of evidence.

• Consensus : the degree to which other people behave similarly in a similar situation. For example, Alexander smokes a cigarette when he goes to lunch with his friend. If his friend also smokes, his behavior has a high consensus. If only Alexander smokes, then he is low.
• Distinctiveness : The degree to which a person behaves similarly in similar situations. If Alexander smokes only when socializing with friends, his behavior is highly distinctive. If in any place and at any time, then it is low.
• Consistency : The extent to which a person behaves in a manner each time a situation occurs. If Alexander smokes only when socializing with friends, consistency is high. If only on special occasions, then it is low.

Let's look at an example to help understand this attribution theory. Our subject is Alexey. His behavior is laughter. Alexey laughs at a comedian’s stand-up performance with his friends.

1. If everyone in the room laughs, consensus is high. If only Alexey, then low.
2. If Alexey only laughs at the jokes of a particular comedian, the distinctiveness is high. If she is above everyone and everything, then she is low.
3. If Alexey only laughs at the jokes of a particular comedian, consistency is high. If he rarely laughs at this comedian's jokes, she is low.

Now if:

• everyone laughs at this comedian’s jokes;
• and will not laugh at the jokes of the next comedian, given that they usually laugh;

then we are dealing with external attribution, that is, we assume that Alexei laughs because the comedian is very funny.

On the other hand, if Alexey is a person who:

• the only one who laughs at this comedian's jokes;
• laughs at the jokes of all comedians;
• always laughs at the jokes of a particular comedian;

then we are dealing with internal attribution, that is, we assume that Alexey is the kind of person who likes to laugh.

So there are people who attribute causation to correlation. That is, they see two situations following each other and therefore assume that one causes the other.

One problem, however, is that we may not have enough information to make such a decision. For example, if we don't know Alexey very well, we won't necessarily know for sure whether his behavior will be consistent over time. So what should you do?

According to Kelly, we go back to past experiences and:

• We repeatedly increase the number of necessary reasons . For example, we see an athlete winning a marathon and we think that he must be a very strong athlete, train hard and be motivated. After all, all this is necessary to win.
• Or we increase the number of sufficient reasons . For example, we see that an athlete has failed a doping test and we assume that he was either trying to deceive everyone or accidentally took a prohibited substance. Or maybe he was completely deceived. One reason would be enough.

If your English level is above average, you can watch the following video, in which a teacher from Khan Academy explains the term “covariation” in simple words.

Lee Ross fundamental attribution error. Fundamental attribution errors

According to social psychologists, the fundamental attribution error is a phenomenon that affects most people on the planet. If a person realizes what his essence is, then he is able to better understand how his value judgment about his immediate environment is formed and how other individuals see his actions.

In addition, he gains the ability to more objectively analyze his own achievements and failures. The article will examine in detail the concept of “causal attribution”, systematically outline its various styles and types, and also list the main errors of attribution and their impact on the life of an individual.

Attribution - what is it?

Attribution in psychological science is the process of endowing one person with another with such personal qualities and individual characteristics that he cannot objectively record in the actual field of perception.

To put it simply, people tend to “think out” another person’s behavior, based not on the real situation, but rather on internal preferences. Using the attribution mechanism, an individual analyzes and tries to predict the behavioral patterns of those who meet him on his life path, thereby making it easier for himself to evaluate their actions.

Psychologists associate the emergence of this phenomenon with the fact that the individual often lacks the information that she received at the time of direct observation. Therefore, the individual fills such “voids” of perception with his own rational “fantasies” based on past experience.

However, the choice of one or another explanation for someone else’s behavior is not made blindly; most often it is based on those factors of the current situation that the observer pays the main attention to.

These include:

• subjective factors: personal characteristics and efforts of the observed;
• situational factors: specific conditions and general environment in which the act of behavior takes place.

An excellent example of attribution error is the story that happened to the famous zoologist Konrad Lorenz. In one of his autobiographical books, he talked about a situation when tourists approached his country house and began to watch through the fence as a tall and bearded man ran in shorts through the tall grass, waving his arms and shouting cheerfully about something.

From their side it might seem that they recorded the moment when the great scientist went crazy. However, Lorenz explains that in fact he was not alone on the lawn, but together with small ducklings, which could not be seen behind the tall grass. At that time, he was studying the effect of imprinting in birds. Tourists, in the absence of a complete amount of information, calmly came up with the most suitable version for the observed situation. This is called attribution.

The power of attribution is entirely based on these two “pillars”:

1. The extent to which the observed behavior corresponds to the role expectations and preferences of the observer. That is, the more commonality between what an individual saw and how he understood it (the process of understanding includes reference to personal preferences and expectations), the smaller the deficit in the information field, and therefore the weaker the attribution effect.
2. How well the observed action fits into the cultural norms in which the observer grew up.

Attribution Types

In social psychology, it is customary to divide attribution into three separate types, each of which has its own characteristics. Let's take a closer look at them.

Personal attribution

The cause is attributed by the observer to the main “culprit” of the behavioral pattern. That is, it is common for an individual to “shift” in his reasoning to the personality of another person, as a factor leading to a certain result. For example, a colleague received a promotion. How will his achievement be explained to those who prefer personal attribution? Certainly not for such objective reasons as hard work, perseverance or professionalism. Rather, that he is a suck-up, a careerist and curries favor with his superiors.

Similarly, this applies to such a common phenomenon as self-flagellation. Let's say that some woman cannot find a worthy chosen one in life. With personal attribution, she will tend to blame herself for all troubles.

For example: “I’m ugly, so no one wants to date me” or “I’m not interesting enough for any man to be interested in me.” And this despite the fact that the real reasons may lie in a completely different plane, which a person deliberately ignores, preferring his favorite mechanisms for explaining his own failures.

Psychologists are convinced that this type of attribution is absolutely not productive and over time can lead to severe depression, neuroses of varying intensity, suicidal tendencies and a persistent decrease in self-esteem. An individual who does not try to look at his behavior critically, “from the outside,” is doomed to negative reflection and all the ensuing consequences.

Object type of causal attribution

In the case of stimulus attribution, the person prefers to make the culprit of the current situation a certain third-party object or object. For example, a child broke a family vase. How will he explain his action? It’s very simple: “The vase broke on its own.” That is, the fact that he ran around it all day and ended up catching it and breaking it is not important. According to his logic, the vase wanted to break itself, as if possessing a separate consciousness.

Most serious problems in an individual's interpersonal behavior originate precisely from the object type of attribution. Thus, a jealous husband explains that he beat his wife by saying that she gave him a reason for it. A group of high school students interpret their taunting of an animal by saying it barked at them. The feeding ground for such an attribution is aggression uncontrolled by the individual, as well as outbursts of anger, after which the individual, in order to calm his conscience, needs to somehow justify his own destructive behavior.

Circumstantial type

For individuals prone to this type, everything is always to blame for the prevailing circumstances, some environmental factors, which at first glance have no correlation with the situation. Thus, a hypochondriac finds in “magnetic storms” a reason to take medication, and an alcoholic in “signs of fate” a reason to drink. At the same time, the objective factors that provoke this or that behavior are completely ignored.

Psychologists are convinced that in this way a person tries to transfer internal tension externally, shifting responsibility for events onto the shoulders of someone or something else. This is especially true for religious people and those involved in esoteric practices. They explain their successes as “a gift from heaven,” and their failures as “the wiles of the devil.” The thorough type is extremely difficult to respond to psychotherapeutic influence, since its roots lie deep in the childhood of the individual.

Attribution errors

Social psychologists have determined that fundamental attribution errors consist of two independent factors:

1. A dispositional factor is the explanation of behavioral reactions by the personal qualities of the subjects involved in its implementation.
2. A situational factor is an explanation of behavior by the characteristics of the situation itself.

Moreover, it is common for an “ordinary” person to interpret current events in such a way that someone else’s behavior is described using dispositional mechanisms, and their own - by situational phenomena. That is, if someone from work was sprayed by a bus at a bus stop, then “it’s your own fault, you should have watched where you were standing,” and if the individual himself was sprayed, then the inattentive driver, the road service, or the rain are to blame.

The group attribution error, which is not much different from the above example, also deserves special mention. Its peculiarity is that it is characteristic not of one individual, but of an entire team. Thus, as a result of the work process, one department of the company explains the successes of another by the current circumstances, and its own - by the personal successes of its members, who invested more in the common cause.

Psychological studies have shown that attribution errors are caused by such phenomena as:

1. "False consent." An interesting phenomenon, the essence of which is that a person is confident, his value judgments and views on life are “correct” or “normal”, and are characteristic of most other people. As a result, the individual overestimates his own beliefs and underestimates them in others. Against this background, ethnic and religious conflicts often arise.
2. "Unequal Opportunities." This phenomenon is clearly manifested in large companies, especially at the time of a sharp rise or, conversely, decline in production. If at this moment you ask your boss what was the reason for success, he will answer: “My leadership and diligence.” At the time of production failures, the answer changes dramatically and sounds like: “They don’t want to work, they lack responsibility and professionalism.” That is, the role prescribes to the individual certain judgments that seem to correspond to it. Thus, students consider the teacher to be a very smart person, but having become teachers themselves, they understand that this is not at all the case.
3. “Preference for facts over judgments.” It is important to understand that the fact here is the personality of the other person. An excellent example of this is the popular wisdom: “You are greeted by your clothes, but you are seen off by your mind.” Only in this case, they also escort you by your clothes, because it’s more convenient.
4. "Template judgment." Combining several personal characteristics into a logical chain. Thus, stereotypes are formed that tall people are arrogant, and overweight people are good-natured.

Finally, I would like to say that it is common for an individual to instantly and categorically evaluate the actions of other people. This significantly saves effort and energy and takes much less time than a painstaking analysis of all aspects of the situation.

However, in most cases, such a strategy does not lead to positive consequences, but only creates problems with mutual understanding among members of society. Therefore, psychologists recommend that their clients try to look at themselves “from the outside” and try to get used to the role of another person. Such procedures make it possible to level out attribution errors, which will make the individual more successful and happy.

Conclusion

It is very important to avoid causal attribution, especially when it ruins your life and leads to trouble. Stop your flow of thoughts for a moment and understand the reason for the behavior of a particular person - this is usually enough to avoid making sudden conclusions. This will improve your observation skills and teach you to empathize with others.

In addition, you should understand that there is no problem in attributing your failures to external factors, and your success to internal ones (especially if it is deserved). Just don’t make a blind habit out of it, but look at the situation.

We wish you good luck!

Did you like the article? Join our communities on social networks or our Telegram channel and don’t miss the release of new useful materials: TelegramVKontakteFacebook

How to overcome a mistake

Overcoming the fundamental attribution error is a step towards loving people. This will help you along the way:

• Mindfulness. We make conclusions about others automatically, based on our experience and expectations. Mindfulness takes time and mental effort, so people are more likely to succumb to this bias when they are too tired to think about someone's circumstances. Before you label someone, think about what might have caused them to act that way.
• Faith in chance. Yes, people are responsible for their lives, but they cannot foresee everything. A person may simply be unlucky.
• Sensitivity. Always accept the possibility that you don't know something. People can make mistakes due to traumatic events in the past or present, poor physical condition - hunger, stress, hormonal fluctuations, lack of sleep. A person himself often does not understand what is happening to him, let alone strangers.

Of course, only you decide how to relate to the behavior of other people, especially if you have been harmed in some way. Just remember that in addition to a person's personal qualities, there is also the influence of a situation in which you might have done the same.