Fundamental Attribution Error

What research demonstrates that people are less likely to make fundamental attribution errors if they are suspicious?

Fein et al. (1990) Ran a version of Jones and Harris' study. In one condition, Ps were told that the writers may have had an ulterior motive for complying with the request to write it. In this condition, the FAE did not occur.

What classic research demonstrates the fundamental attribution error?

Jones and Harris (1967) Subjects read an essay that was either for or against a topical issue (Fidel Castro's Cuba). In one condition, they were told that the student was told which stance to take, and in the other they were told that the student decided to take their own stance on the topic. They were asked to judge whether the student was pro or anti-Castro. Regardless of the situational factor they had been told, subjects judged the writers of pro-Castro essays to be pro-Castro, and vice versa.

What are 5 explanations of why people commit fundamental attribution errors?

1. Automatic characterisation 2. Expectations 3. Taking behaviour at face value 4. Salience 5. Cultural phenomenon

What can be concluded from Gilbert et al.'s (1988) and Krull and Erickson's (1995) research?

1. The automatic judgement made depends on what judgement you are being asked to make. 2. The adjustments that are made are based on what judgements you are being asked to make.

What research investigated the influence of expectations on the fundamental attribution error?

Jones et al. (1971) Similar design to Jones and Harris, but the essays were pro or anti-marijuana legalisation. One group read well-written essays that were either pro or anti marijuana, and the other group read poorly written essays. If the essay was well-written, subjects were more likely to believe that the writer's attitude is consistent with their essay, and if it was poorly written, they would believe that the writer holds the opposing attitude.

What research followed on from Gilbert et al. (1988) using the same video tapes?

Krull and Erickson (1995): Subjects were asked to judge how anxiety-provoking the situation was, not the actor. One group was told that the interviewee was an anxious person, and the other group was told that she was not an anxious person. If subjects were told that the interviewee was anxious, they judged the situation to be less anxiety-provoking than if they were told that she was not anxious. Therefore, subjects were doing stage 3 then 2 (situation then actor).

How do people's expectations influence whether they commit a fundamental attribution error or not?

People have expectations of others behaviour, e.g. in Jones and Harris' experiment, subjects may have been more likely to believe that the writer of the essay is consistent with the stance if it is well-written.

How did Gilbert et al. (1988) test their theory of automatic characterisation, and what did they find?

Subjects watched a silent video tape of a woman being interviewed. She was behaving in an anxious way. The group that was told that the interview topic was one that would evoke anxiety judged her as having less trait anxiety than the group who were told that the interview was a neutral topic (demonstrating that they have accounted for the situation). However, when the cognitive load of the subjects was high (were asked to memorise a list of words), they had fewer cognitive resources to adjust for the situation so judged the actor to be more anxious regardless of differences in situation.

What research demonstrates that people tend to assign causal responsibility to things that are highly salient?

Taylor and Fiske (1975) Set up conversations between 2 actors. Subjects were positioned either in between the 2 actors, or closer to one or the other. When asked questions about the conversation, e.g. who contributed more, set the tone, etc., the middle observer rated the actors as equal, but the ones sat closer to one or the other rated the actor they were sat closest to as contributing more. Therefore, people assign more causal responsibility to those that are more salient.

What conclusion can be made from Jones et al.'s (1971) experiment?

That a fundamental attribution error will only occur if behaviour does not match expectations. (The FAE did not occur when reading poorly written essays because they did not meet expectations)

What is the main criticism of Gilbert et al.'s (1988) research supposedly supporting their theory?

The subjects were asked to make a judgement of the actor before the experiment started. It is argued that automatic characterisation only occurs when the person is actively looking to judge the person, and in normal circumstances, parts 2 and 3 of the model are reversed.

What is the fundamental attribution error?

The tendency to overestimate the role of personal characteristics and underestimate the role of situational factors when explaining other peoples' behaviour.

How does Gilbert et al.'s (1988) theory of automatic characterisation explain fundamental attribution errors?

When we observe another person's behaviour, we go through 3 stages: 1. Behaviour identification, e.g. identifying the behaviour as hostile, ambiguous, etc. 2. Automatic characterisation: Subconsciously characterising the actor in terms of that behaviour. 3. Adjustment for the situation: Taking into account other factors in the environment- NOT automatic, requires conscious effort and reasoning.