2

Attribution theory

Key • Internal–external dichotomy

attribution • Correspondent inference model
theories • Covaration model

• Fundamental attribution error

Attribution Attribution • Actor–observer effect
theory biases • Self-serving biases
• Belief in a just world

• Artefact of research design

Critique of • Conceptualisation
attribution • Role of internal dispositions
research
• Non-universal effect

A printable version of this topic map is available from:

www.pearsoned.co.uk/psychologyexpress

19
2 • Attribution theory

Introduction

Social psychologists have studied the processes by which people explain

the causes of their own and other people’s behaviour, under the domain of
attribution research, for over half a century. Attribution theories try to explain
the processes we go through when deciding why people behave in the way they
do. For example, if a close friend turned up late for a meeting, how would you
explain this behaviour?
Attribution theories suggest that both information about a person’s character
(internal disposition) and the situation (external influences) are used to make
attributions about the cause of this lateness.
One of the key findings of attribution research is that shortcuts are taken when
making attributions for our own and others’ behaviour. This can lead to errors
in our explanations, known as attribution biases. This chapter will evaluate the
evidence for attribution biases and explore how psychologists have tried to
explain why these errors occur.
The methods used to measure attributions will be debated and the idea that
these errors apply universally across cultures will be explored.

➔ Revision checklist

Essential points to revise are:

❑❑ How social cognitive theorists explain the causes of our own and others’
behaviour
❑❑ When, how and why errors in attributions are made
❑❑ The methods used to measure attributions and the pitfalls of these
approaches
❑❑ The role culture plays in our explanations of behaviour
❑❑ The main critiques of attribution theory and alternative perspectives

Assessment advice
●❑ It is unlikely that attributions can fully explain how behaviour is
understood. When trying to make sense of others’ and our own behaviour
we may, for example, also draw on schemas, social comparisons,
stereotypes, prejudice and non-verbal communication. If you are asked to
discuss how we infer causes of others’ behaviour, it may be appropriate
to refer to research from across social psychology as well as material on
attribution theory.
●❑ Your assessments may ask you to apply attribution to explain our own
behaviour, in which case you may wish to consider our concept of self (see

20
 Key attribution theories

Chapter 3, Self) or you may be asked to apply attribution to understand

relationship satisfaction (see Chapter 9, Interpersonal attraction).

Sample question
Could you answer this question? Below is a typical essay that could arise on this
topic.

Q Sample question Essay

The actor–observer effect is a widely accepted attribution bias in social

psychology. Critically evaluate the evidence that this bias exists in reality.

Guidelines on answering this question are included at the end of this chapter,
whilst further guidance on tackling other exam questions can be found on the
companion website at: www.pearsoned.co.uk/psychologyexpress

Key attribution theories

Heider (1958) believed we are all naive scientists trying to make sense of other
people’s behaviour using commonsense psychology. Essentially, we want to
understand why others behave in a certain way to help us predict their behaviour
in the future.
Since mental states are not directly observable, people can only make
attributions about a person’s mental state based on observable features of the
person (e.g., their behaviour) and the situational context that the person is in.
Attribution theories adopt a social cognitive perspective to examine the way
in which the causes of our own and others’ behaviour are explained. Social
cognition is, arguably, the dominant approach to studying phenomena in
social psychology. This approach focuses on the way our cognitive processes
are influenced by our interactions with the social environment and how our
cognitions affect the world around us (e.g., Fiske & Taylor, 1991).

Internal–external dichotomy
One of the key aims of attribution theories is to outline the circumstances which
lead us to make an internal as opposed to an external attribution for our own or
others’ behaviour. For example, if John is seen to drive into a lamp post, how is
this behaviour explained? See Table 2.1.

21
2 • Attribution theory

Table 2.1 Internal versus external attributions for behaviour

Internal External
Definition Behaving in a certain way because Behaving in a certain way because of
of something about the person (e.g., something about the situation
traits, motives, intentions) (assumption that most people will
behave in the same way in that
situation)
Example John drove his car into a lamp post John drove his car into a lamp post
because he is not a skilled driver and because there was a frost and the
is easily distracted road was very slippery

Correspondent inference theory

Jones and Davis’ (1965) theory of correspondent inference states that we
are more likely to conclude others’ behaviour reflects their internal stable
dispositional traits if behaviour is:
●❑ freely chosen
●❑ yields distinctive, non-common effects
●❑ is low in social desirability.
Non-common effects refer to effects produced by a particular cause that could
not be produced by any other apparent cause. In other words, they are where
we can eliminate other possible causes and more clearly identify that this one
factor caused the behaviour. If an individual has a choice and if their actions
differ in any way from expectations, then individuals are likely to make a
correspondent attribution that ties their action to an internal disposition.

Key study

Jones and Harris (1967). Correspondent inference theory

Jones and Harris (1967) provide evidence for their correspondent inference theory
in a series of experiments. The experimental paradigm involves asking participants
to read a piece written by a student favouring a particular position on a topical issue
(e.g., the legalisation of marijuana) and asking them to infer the position held by the
author. Experimental conditions are created by informing participants that the author
was assigned to defend a particular position or given free choice which position to take
(no choice/choice condition).
Results confirmed correspondent inference theory in that:
●❑ attitudes which were in line with behaviour were more decisively attributed to the
target person in the choice than in the no choice condition
●❑ however, degree of choice made a greater difference if the essay or speech ran
counter to the expected or normative position.
However, counter to correspondent inference theory, even in the no choice condition,
participants tended to attribute attitudes in line with the speech. Attributing too much
▲

22
 Key attribution theories

importance to the person and not enough importance to the situation led to the
hypothesis that a correspondence bias existed – this quickly became known as the
fundamental attribution error (FAE).

Covariation model
Kelley (1967, 1972) argues that, when forming an attribution, information is
gathered about how a person’s behaviour changes (or covaries) over time, across
situations and with different people. The theory proposes individuals draw on
information regarding consensus, consistency and distinctiveness when deciding
why someone acts in a specific way on a specific occasion. Using these three
sources of information, it is possible to predict whether someone is likely to
make an internal or an external attribution (see Table 2.2).

Table 2.2 Outline of Kelley’s covariation model

Consensus Distinctiveness Consistency

Definition The extent to which The extent to which The extent to which
other people act in the person behaves the person acts in
the same way when in the same way in a this way when in this
in the same situation different situation or situation/with this
or with the same with different stimuli stimuli on different
stimuli occasions
Example High consensus High distinctiveness High consistency

The majority of John only falls asleep John always falls

students fall asleep in in statistics lectures asleep in statistics
statistics lectures and not in other lectures
lectures
Attribution made:
Internal Low Low High
External High High High
Internal and External Low High High
Unique situation Low or high Low or high Low*

* Inconsistency information conveys a sense of uncertainty about future events – high consistency is
needed to form an internal or external attribution

Focus on methods
Ployhart, Ehrhart & Hayes (2005) applied Kelley’s covariation model when
investigating the effects of explanations for decisions on students’ applications
to study at university. The paper describes an experimental and a field study.
In study one, participants imagined they had received a rejection or success
letter following an application for a university place. The letters were designed
to provide consensus, distinctiveness and consistency information explaining the

23
2 • Attribution theory

reasons for the decision. Participants completed a standardised scale to determine

whether they would make an internal or external attribution for the decision.
In study two, students reflected on acceptance or rejection letters they had
actually received. Open-ended questions determined whether the students
perceived covariation information from the letters received.
The findings suggested the way letters are worded may affect perceptions of the
application process, the self and the organisation.
When reading this paper, you should evaluate the degree to which each of the
two studies captures the process of making attributions. Consider the pros and
cons of the two different methodologies – for example, what is the effect on
recruitment and retention of participants, how do the recruitment methods affect
applications of the findings and the extent to which variables can be controlled?
In the field study, an actual letter is used whereas in the experimental study a
letter is constructed and students are asked to imagine how they would react.
What are the advantages and disadvantages of these approaches?

Points to consider
●❑ Assumptions and biases: the correspondent inference theory and covariation
model assume that people observe the clues and make attributions in a
rational, logical way, but this is often not the case.
●❑ Extensions: both these theories presented rely on the acceptance of the
internal–external dichotomy in describing how causal attributions are made.
Many studies support the idea that people make attributions in this way, but,
others argue this dichotomy is overly simplistic. For example, Weiner (1995)
argues that individuals make attributions based on:
●❑ stability of the causal factors over time – e.g., personality traits may be

stable over time, whereas health or motives may be unstable

●❑ degree of control – e.g.,the amount of effort someone exerts is largely

controllable whereas ability is uncontrollable.

●❑ Action identification: research indicates that it isn’t just what people do that is
important but our interpretation of their action and whether the action is seen
as having greater meaning. Low-level interpretations focus on the action itself,
whilst higher-level interpretations focus on its ultimate goals. Our level of
interpretation of others’ actions may be crucial in influencing our explanations
for an individual’s behaviour (see Kozak, Marsh & Wegner, 2006).

Test your knowledge

2.1 Explain, using an example, what is meant by uncommon effects, as
defined by the correspondent inference theory.
2.2 Compile a list of points to demonstrate how the correspondent
inference theory and covariation theory are complimentary, contrasting
and conflicting.

24
 Attribution biases

2.3 The majority of students arrive on time for social psychology lectures,
with the exception of Rosie who is always late. Rosie does arrive on
time when meeting for social events. How would the covariation model
suggest we would explain Rosie’s behaviour? What other factors do you
think could be important in determining the attribution we make?
Answers to the questions can be found at: www.pearsoned.co.uk/psychologyexpress

? Sample question Essay

Compare and contrast theories of attribution, supporting your answer with

empirical evidence.

Further reading Attribution theories

Topic Key reading
Value of the internal– White, P. A. (1991). Ambiguity in the internal/external
external dichotomy distinction in causal attribution. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 27(3), 259–270.
Application of the Ployhart, R. E., Ehrhart, K. H., & Hayes, S. C. (2005). Using
covariation model attributions to understand the effects of explanations
on applicant reactions: Are reactions consistent with the
covariation principle? Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
35(2), 259–296.
Action identification Kozak, M. N., Marsh, A. A., & Wegner, D. M. (2006). What do
and attribution I think you’re doing?: Action identification and mind attribution.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 543–555.

Attribution biases

Although individuals are generally quite good at social perception and in

many cases they reach accurate conclusions about others’ traits and motives
from observing their behaviour, we are not perfect. In an effort to understand
ourselves and others a number of errors or biases in attribution are made. The
most commonly cited of these are the fundamental attribution error, the actor–
observer effect, self-serving bias and the just world hypothesis.

Fundamental attribution error

The fundamental attribution error, sometimes referred to as correspondence bias
(Jones & Harris, 1967), has been defined as the tendency to infer that people’s
behaviour is due to their internal disposition (personality or beliefs) rather than to

25
2 • Attribution theory

the situation (external influences). This idea relates to one of the main findings of
social psychology, that we tend to underestimate the powerful influence of social
situations on our behaviour. Jones and Harris’, (1967) seminal study demonstrated
this bias utilising an experimental approach. It should be noted that the bias is
more likely to occur in specific circumstances – for example, when consensus and
distinctiveness are low and when predicting others’ behaviour in the far-off future.

Actor–observer effect
Nisbett, Caputo, Legant and Marecek’s, (1973) classic study (utilising questionnaire
and experimental techniques) demonstrated the fundamental attribution error is
not observed consistently. The cause of the same act will be interpreted differently
depending on whether you are the person performing the behaviour (actor) or the
person observing that behaviour (observer). We tend to apply dispositional causes
for others’ behaviour whereas we are more likely to focus on situational causes
when explaining our own behaviour. ‘John walked into the lamp post because he is
clumsy’, whereas ‘I bumped into the lamp post because my friend distracted me’.
As with the fundamental attribution error, specific situations may affect the
likelihood of an actor–observer effect. For example, when the behaviour is
unusual or socially undesirable we are more likely to see an actor–observer effect.
Harre, Brandt and Houkman, (2004) examined the actor–observer effect in relation
to young drivers’ attributions of their own and others’ risky driving. Participants
were asked to indicate the reasons why they may take risks when driving.
Responses were coded by researchers and categorised as either dispositional
or situational causes. The results showed that more dispositional attributions
were made for others’ risky driving (observer) but there were no differences in
the number of dispositional or situational attributions made for their own driving
(actor). Thus, only offering partial support for the actor–observer effect.
One of the proposed explanations for this finding was the difficulty in
categorising responses as either dispositional or situational causes – for example,
is ‘showing off’ due to disposition or situation? It could be that there were errors
in the coding or, more fundamentally, the dispositional–situational dimension is
inadequate on its own to explain the way we interpret and explain our own and
others’ behaviour (Malle, 2006; White, 1991).

Explanations for biases

Attribution biases have been explained from a cognitive perspective (see
Table 2.3) or by examining our motivations. You may be motivated to see the
world in certain ways because these views make you feel better about yourself
(self-serving bias) or life in general (belief in a just world).

Self-serving biases
The attributions we make for our own behaviour may be dependent on whether
we feel we have succeeded or failed. A tendency to attribute positive outcomes

26
 Attribution biases

Table 2.3 Cognitive explanations for attribution biases

Explanations for attribution Fundamental attribution Actor–observer effect

biases error
Perceptual salience We focus on the person We are aware of situational
When trying to explain rather than the surrounding factors affecting our
behaviour we focus on situation behaviour but are not so
information that is most People have greater aware of these external
salient for us perceptual salience than the factors when observing
situation others
To explain our behaviour:
situation has salience
To explain others’ behaviour:
person has salience
Information availability We lack information Actors’ self-attributions often
about the situation or this reflect situational factors
information may be difficult because we know how our
to interpret (we may not behaviour varies from one
know the meaning of the situation to the next, whereas
situation for the person) we may not have that
information about someone
we are observing
Intimacy If we know the actor well the
actor–observer difference
should be reduced or
eliminated because we
have information about how
they usually act in a similar
situation
Two-step process of The anchoring and adjustment heuristic suggests we take
attribution mental shortcuts, firstly assuming behaviour is due to an
individual’s disposition and only later considering the role of
the situation

to internal causes (our ability, personality, effort), but negative outcomes to

external causes (chance, task, difficulty) is known as a self-serving bias.
Individuals may make self-serving biases:
●❑ to protect their self-esteem or present a positive self-image – most people try
to maintain self-esteem even if they need to distort reality by changing their
thoughts or beliefs (see also Chapter 3, Self)
●❑ as a result of personal knowledge about past performance or when they
expect to succeed – individuals have a tendency to attribute expected
outcomes to internal causes.

Belief in a just world

People may make attribution biases which defend them against the realisation
that they are vulnerable to tragic events, such as rape or disease. One form of

27
2 • Attribution theory

this attribution is the ‘belief in a just world’ – the assumption that people get
what they deserve and deserve what they get (Lerner, 1977).
These defensive attributions help keep anxiety-provoking thoughts about our own
mortality at bay. Studies have shown people often blame victims of crime for causing
their fate – rape victims are to blame for rape, battered wives are responsible for
abusive husbands’ behaviour (Abrams, Tendayi, Masser & Bohner, 2003). This clearly
demonstrates an important real-world application of social psychology. We need
to look carefully at the situation before drawing a dispositional inference to deter
individuals from blaming the victim for random acts of misfortune.

Test your knowledge

2.4 Using relevant examples, explain what is meant by the fundamental
attribution error and the actor–observer effect.
2.5 Compare and contrast the methods adopted by Harre et al. (2004) with
those utilised by Ployhart et al. (2005). List the pros and cons or using closed
rating scales versus open-ended questions for measuring attributions.
2.6 The actor–observer effect should be reduced or eliminated if we know
the actor well. What is the evidence for this ‘intimacy’ explanation?
Answers to these questions can be found at: www.pearsoned.co.uk/psychologyexpress

? Sample question Essay

When are attribution biases most likely to occur? Discuss with reference to
psychological evidence.

Further reading Attribution biases

Topic Key reading
Review of the evidence for Gilbert, D. T., & Malone, P. S. (1995). The correspondence
the fundamental attribution bias. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 21–83.
error
Empirical study of the Harre, N., Brandt, T., & Houkman, C. (2004). An examination
actor–observer effect of the actor–observer effect in young drivers’ attributions for
their own and their friends’ risky driving. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 34(4), 806–824
Review of the evidence for Malle, B. F. (2006). The actor–observer asymmetry in
the actor–observer effect attribution: A (surprising) meta-analysis. Psychological
Bulletin, 132(6), 895–919.
Belief in a just world Abrams, D., Tendayi, V. G., Masser, B., & Bohner, G. (2003).
Perceptions of stranger and acquaintance rape: The role of
benevolent and hostile sexism in victim blame and rape proclivity.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(1), 111–125.

28
 Critique of attribution research

Critique of attribution research

Attribution biases are cited in all social psychology texts and are, arguably, a key
to understanding the way individuals interpret human behaviour. However, there
are a number of critiques you should be aware of. Figure 2.1 outlines four of the
main areas of debate.

Artefact of research design

Ecological validity
Research has consistently demonstrated the actor–observer effect, but the
majority of studies have small effect sizes. The experimental design has
the advantage of determining cause and effect but we must be cautious in
our extrapolation of findings. Often attribution experiments are limited to
hypothetical or imagined scenarios. Some authors have questioned the external
validity of these studies, suggesting explanations for actual events do not
demonstrate a (fundamental attribution error) or an actor–observer difference.

Non-universal effect Artefact of

research design
· Collectivistic versus
individualistic cultures · Ecological validity
· Differences across the · Coding of responses
lifespan
· Effect of valence
· Wealth and social
comparison

Role of internal dispositions Conceptualisation

· Individual differences · Lack of clear definitions

· Social evaluation of concepts
· Interpersonal motives · Relevance of internal–
external dichotomy

Figure 2.1 Critique of the evidence for attribution biases

29
2 • Attribution theory

Coding of responses
Many authors argue the internal–external dichotomy is too simplistic to capture
significant variance in the way people explain behaviour. Perhaps natural text
coding (in other words categorising freely elicited responses from open-ended
questions) would be more sensitive than fixed rating scales in detecting actor–
observer differences. However, the method of analysis is as important as the
method of capturing attributions. Even if participants are allowed to indicate
the perceived causes of behaviour in an open-ended manner, researchers may
restrict these responses by imposing restricted categories in the analyses (e.g.,
all responses may still end up being categorised as internal or external causes;
Malle, Knobe & Nelson, 2007).

Effect of valence
Attribution biases may be more prevalent when the outcome of an event is
negative, the situation in the majority of published studies. Therefore it has
been argued that attribution bias may be an artefact of bias in experimental
design. We may need to add a caveat to the idea that biases are universal
and fundamental. Indeed, we could argue there is no general actor–observer
difference but a tendency towards the self-serving bias. See Malle (2006) for
further explanations of the effect of valence.

Conceptualisation
Lack of clear definitions of concepts
There are many inconsistencies in the operationalisation of terms in the
attribution literature and there is no agreed upon meaning of the term situation.
Personal explanations refer to causes that reside inside the actor, but this
could encompass personality traits, attitudes or mood. Consequently, personal
explanations have been referred to as internal attributions, trait attributions or
dispositional attributions. The interchangeable use of terms makes it difficult to
make any meaningful comparison between the findings of research. It will be
difficult to make generalisations about the findings in attribution until there is an
accepted definition of the key variables.

Relevance of internal–external dichotomy

The real fundamental attribution error, as suggested by Sabini, Siepmann &
Stein, (2001), is psychologists’ beliefs that the causes of behaviour are simple
and easily dichotomised. Many researchers have argued that the bias only occurs
as a result of experimental demand characteristics and biased interpretations.
Participants may believe behaviour is due to an interaction of internal and
external causes or may not consider the causes of behaviour in this dimension.
Therefore, asking individuals to infer whether behaviour is internally or externally
caused may be imposing a false dichotomy.

30
 Critique of attribution research

Role of internal dispositions

Individual differences
Attribution theories are grounded in the idea that the situation is more important
than internal dispositions when explaining behaviour. However, there is growing
debate regarding the role of internal dispositions in the way individuals form
attributions.
Some would argue social psychologists have not shown dispositions are
significantly less important than laypeople believe them to be. For example,
Milgram’s studies (see Chapter 4, Social influence) are thought to demonstrate
that behaviour is situationally produced, but the findings could also be explained
by stating certain dispositions are stronger than others (obeying authority
versus doing the right thing) or that particular situational factors (demands of
experimenter) are more important than others (suffering of victim).
Additionally, evidence suggests the actor–observer effect may be dependent
on specific individual differences, such as the degree of self-monitoring. High
self-monitors expect themselves to behave differently across situations whereas
low self-monitors expect their behaviour to be stable across situations.

Social evaluation
Studies which are frequently cited as demonstrating the situation is more
important than dispositions when explaining social behaviour could, according
to Sabini et al. (2001), be reinterpreted in terms of personality psychology. The
central point of Sabini et al.’s (2001) article is that people in Western cultures
underestimate the degree to which people’s behaviour is affected by concerns
with saving face and avoiding embarrassment.

Interpersonal motives
Leary (2001) suggests there is a need for increased attention on the role of
self-presentation and the manner in which interpersonal motives (facework,
impression management, desire for acceptance) shape the self and direct
behaviour.

Non-universal effect
Despite the original proposition for universal laws of attributions, there is now
little doubt that specific attributions can only be fully understood by taking into
account the wider belief and value systems of individuals. Attribution biases may
be dependent upon culture, your stage in the lifespan and social comparison.

Collectivistic versus individualistic cultures

Cross-cultural research has shown the fundamental attibution error is more
prominent in individualistic cultures compared with collectivistic cultures (e.g.,
Blanchard-Fields, Chen, Horhota & Wang, 2007). Differences have also been

31
2 • Attribution theory

found in the self-serving bias. Individuals from collectivistic cultures have been
found to attribute successes to aspects of the situation and failure to internal
causes. Interestingly, this would be described as a depressive attributional style
in Western society, but is thought to strengthen interdependence of group
members in Asian cultures.

Differences across the lifespan

Research has shown that older adults display stronger dispositional biases than
do young adults. One explanation relies on the assumption that older adults
have fewer resources to draw on and are therefore more likely to rely on a
more accessible automatic process – in Western populations this would be a
dispositional response. Blanchard-Fields et al. (2007) discuss the role of lifespan
on attribution biases in a cross-cultural study, pointing out that this change over
the lifespan wasn’t apparent in a Chinese population. Chinese participants,
regardless of age, showed a preference to examine the situational pressures on
the behaviour of the target person.

Wealth and social comparison

In societies where people believe the world is a just place, economic and social
inequities are considered fair. A just world attribution can be used to explain
and justify injustice. People believe poor and disadvantaged have less because
they deserve less. Interestingly, in cultures with extremes of wealth and poverty,
just world attributions are more common than in cultures where wealth is more
evenly distributed.

CrItICal FOCus

Social cognitive perspective

Evolutionary perspectives
The social cognitive perspective has led to some important and interesting findings
in social psychology. However, some argue the dominance of social cognition has
led to a proliferation of localised theories with limited utility and little emphasis on
a more generalised theory. Baumeister and Leary (1995) propose we are alert to
others’ judgements due to a fundamental, universal, social motive –’the need to
belong’. An evolutionary explanation for this need to belong suggests our behaviour is
ultimately driven by a biological instinct (see also Chapter 9, Interpersonal attraction).
Embarrassment is proposed to have evolved as one manifestation of the basic human
need to seek inclusion and avoid rejection – and, as noted earlier, it is an important
motive in influencing behaviour. Consequently, it is a motive that social psychologists
may need to research further.
Phenomenological interpretation
Langdridge and Butt (2004) offer a critique of the social cognitive perspective and the
fundamental attribution error in particular, based on a phenomenological approach.
The fundamental attribution error rests on the assumption of dualism between
the individual (i.e., internal dispositions) and the social (external influences). This

32
 Critique of attribution research

suggests there is a clear division between them, whereas Langdridge and Butt argue
psychological entities such as thought, emotion and behaviour cannot be measured as
separate entities. Read Langdridge and Butt’s paper for more on this perspective. The
interrelationship between social and individual processes are also discussed in Chapter
11, Critical social psychology.

Test your knowledge

2.7 Explain how and why culture may affect the way we make attributions.
2.8 How might embarrassment play a role in attribution biases?
2.9 Select a number of empirical studies on the fundamental attribution
error and determine how the authors have defined the internal–
external dimension. Where the definitions vary, how does this affect our
interpretation of findings?
Answers to these questions can be found at: www.pearsoned.co.uk/psychologyexpress

? Sample question Essay

How ‘fundamental’ is the fundamental attribution error?

Further reading Critiques of attribution research

Topic Key reading
Role of social evaluation in Sabini, J., Siepmann, M., & Stein, J. (2001). The really
explaining the fundamental fundamental attribution error in social psychological research.
attribution error Psychological Inquiry, 12(1), 1–15.
Role of culture and lifespan Blanchard-Fields, F., Chen, Y., Horhota, M., & Wang, M.
in the fundamental (2007) Cultural differences in the relationship between aging
attribution error and the correspondence bias. Journal of Gerontology, 62B
(6), 362–365.
Evolutionary explanation Andrews, P. W. (2001) The psychology of social chess and the
of the fundamental evolution of attribution mechanisms: Explaining the fundamental
attribution error attribution error. Evolution and Human Behavior, 222, 11–29.
Phenomenological critique Langdridge, D., & Butt, T. (2004). The fundamental attribution
of the fundamental error: A phenomenological critique. British Journal of Social
attribution error Psychology, 43, 357–369.

? Sample question Problem-based learning

Your friend has recently divulged to you that she is having difficulties in
her marriage. She claims her husband doesn’t understand the way she feels.
▲

33
2 • Attribution theory

How could attribution theory explain the way your friend feels? (You may
wish to refer to Chapter 9, Interpersonal attraction, for help with this
question.)

Chapter summary – pulling it all together

➔❑ Can you tick all the points from the revision checklist at the beginning of
this chapter?
➔❑ Attempt the sample question from the beginning of this chapter using the
answer guidelines below.
➔❑ Go to the companion website at www.pearsoned.co.uk/psychologyexpress
to access more revision support online, including interactive quizzes,
flashcards, You be the marker exercises as well as answer guidance for the
Test your knowledge and Sample questions from this chapter.

Further reading for Chapter 2

Malle, B. F., Knobe, J. M., & Nelson, S. E. (2007). Actor–observer asymmetries in
explanations of behaviour: New answers to an old question. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 93(4), 491–514.

Answer guidelines

Q Sample question Essay

The actor–observer effect is a widely accepted attibution bias in social

psychology. Critically evaluate the evidence that this bias exists in reality.

Approaching the question

One way of approaching this question is to discuss whether the evidence for
the actor–observer effect is ecologically valid. This means you need to gain a
good understanding of the methods used to study the actor–observer effect.
It may be useful to consult a research methods text to ensure you have a good
understanding of the advantages of different methodologies.

Important points to include

The majority of studies have utilised an experimental paradigm and fixed
response attribution scales. You could discuss how this limits the degree to which
we can extrapolate the findings to real-life scenarios. You could also discuss
the possibility that imposing an internal–external dichotomy on participants

34
 Chapter summary – pulling it all together

in attribution studies may introduce experimenter bias. You could consider

how the types of scenarios that are most frequently utilised in studies of the
actor–observer effect differ from naturally occurring situations. For example, the
actor–observer effect is often demonstrated using laboratory-based behaviour
with hypothetical situations, often with unknown or non-existent others. In reality,
we often have some knowledge of the ‘actor’ and their past behaviour in a
similar situation. Our explanations of observers’ behaviour are also dependent
on our attitude towards the actors – disliked actors, actors from out groups,
tend to receive dispositional attributes, but otherwise we may make situational
attributions.

Make your answer stand out

Many studies provide evidence in support of the actor–observer difference.
The findings have been applied to a number of areas within psychology
(relationships, occupational psychology, education) and outside (management,
anthropology, politics). However, Malle in a series of papers (1999, 2006, et
al. 2007) questions the strength of this evidence. A different approach to
examining actor and observer differences is proposed: the folk–conceptual
theory of behaviour explanation. The 2007 paper directly compares predictions
made by the traditional actor–observer theory with those made using this
new theoretical framework. When reading this paper you should note how
adopting a different theoretical stance affects everything about the way a topic
is studied, from the hypotheses, through the research design to the method
of analysis. As Malle points out, the real differences in explanations made by
actors and observers may only be determined by, firstly, allowing participants
to articulate their explanations in a free-form response and, secondly, analysing
these responses using a theoretical framework which goes beyond the internal–
external dichotomy.

Explore the accompanying website at www.pearsoned.co.uk/psychologyexpress

➔❑ ❑Prepare more effectively for exams and assignments using the answer
guidelines for questions from this chapter.
➔❑ ❑Test your knowledge using multiple choice questions and flashcards.
➔❑ ❑Improve your essay skills by exploring the You be the marker exercises.

Notes

35
2 • Attribution theory

Notes

36