Lecture Outline 1. Bem vs. Festinger revisited nEye-witness identification 2. Attributional Biases nFundamental Attribution Error nActor Observer Effect nSelf-Serving Bias nUltimate Attribution Error nFalse Consensus Effect 3. Individual Differences nLocus of Control

Bem vs. Festinger Zanna & Cooper (1974): nPitted self-perception theory against cognitive dissonance theory nCognitive dissonance theory supported by data nExamined attitude change with clear attitudes nPeople engage in self-perception processes when attitudes not clear nResults may have been biased in favor of cognitive dissonance theory

Wells & Bradfield (1999) Examined attitude change when attitude not clear Background Post-identification feedback effect n Telling a witness that s/he correctly identified the suspect increases the witness’s confidence that s/he identified the real perpetrator

1. Witnesses view a line-up Background

2. Witnesses identify who they believe is the real perpetrator nSometimes real perpetrator is in the line-up correct identification typical nOther times real perpetrator is not in the line-up incorrect identification typical Background

3. Police give witnesses confirming feedback “You got the right one!” n That feedback increases witnesses confidence that they identified the real perpetrator post-identification feedback effect n Police/lawyers more likely to charge suspect if witnesses are confident

Wells & Bradfield (1999) nPurpose of study: n Examine why confirming feedback increases confidence nPrediction: n Witnesses infer confidence from confirming feedback because actual confidence unclear nAttitude = Confidence nBehavior = Feedback

Procedures: Wells & Bradfield (1999) nParticipants watched a gunman kill a security guard nParticipants showed line-up nParticipants identified who they believed was the real murderer nReal murderer not in line-up

Experimental Manipulation: Wells & Bradfield (1999) nNo-Thought Condition n Identified suspect from line-up n Feedback given n Rated confidence at time of identification nPrior-Thought Condition n Identified suspect from line-up n Privately thought about confidence at time of identification n Feedback given n Rated confidence at time of identification

What is the difference between conditions ? Wells & Bradfield (1999) Prior Thought

Wells & Bradfield (1999) Prior thought manipulated clarity of attitude (confidence) n No prior thought = unclear attitude n Prior thought = clear attitude According to self-perception theory, who should be most influenced by the feedback? No prior thought

Wells & Bradfield (1999) Confidence

Wells & Bradfield (1999) Consistent with self-perception theory: n Participants inferred their attitude (confidence) from behavior (feedback) when attitude was not clear (no prior thought condition)

Fundamental Attribution Error Definition: nUnderestimate influence of situational factors on others’ behavior nOverestimate influence of dispositional factors on others behavior

Fundamental Attribution Error The Quiz Game Study Ross, Amabile & Steinmetz (1977) Three groups of participants nQuestioners nContestants nObservers

Questioners : ncomposed 10 difficult questions to ask contestants Contestants: nanswered the questions Observers: nwatched the interaction The Quiz Game Study (Ross et al.,1977)

What is the longest glacier in the world? The Lambert Glacier 435 miles long

What does W. H. in Auden’s name stand for? Wystan Hugh Auden

Procedures : nParticipants played their role nasking questions nanswering questions nobserving interaction nParticipants then rated the general knowledge of questioner and contestant The Quiz Game Study (Ross et al.,1977)

Fundamental Attribution Error: nUnderestimate influence of situational factors on behavior nOverestimate influence of dispositional factors on behavior The Quiz Game Study (Ross et al.,1977) What is the prediction for this study?

Prediction: nRate questioners’ general knowledge higher than contestants general knowledge The Quiz Game Study (Ross et al.,1977)

Results: nContestants and observers rated questioner more knowledgeable than contestants The Quiz Game Study (Ross et al.,1977) Role of Rater Rating of Questioner Rating of Contestant 6741 Observer8349

Conclusion: nBehavior attributed to dispositional qualities nBehavior not attributed to participants’ role in study nFits the FAE nOverestimate dispositional factors nUnderestimate situational factors The Quiz Game Study (Ross et al.,1977)

Fundamental Attribution Error nWhy do people fall prey to the Fundamental Attribution Error? l Others’ behavior very salient l Situation faced by others not as salient nFundamental Attribution Error is robust, but not universal l Not evident in young children l More evident in Western cultures l More likely under some conditions

Actor-Observer Effect Definition: nTendency to attribute own behavior to situational factors, but others’ behavior to their disposition nAttributing others’ behavior to their disposition = FAE nAttributing own behavior to situational factors is what is added

nParticipants fell prey to the Fundamental Attribution Error nContestants and Observers rated Questioners as having more general knowledge than the contestants nResults also showed the Actor- Observer Effect nContestants saw own general knowledge more similar to Question ers’ than did Observers The Quiz Game Study (Ross et al.,1977)

The Quiz Game Study (Ross et al.,1977) Role of Rater Rating of Questioner Rating of Contestant 6741 Observer8349 Contestants saw own general knowledge more similar to Questioners’ than did Observers Contestants more sensitive to role than were observers Fits A-O Effect

Additional Finding: nQuestioners’ were most sensitive to role nRated own general knowledge equal to that of Contestants The Quiz Game Study (Ross et al.,1977) Role of Rater Rating of Questioner Rating of Contestant 6741 Questioner Observer8349

Question Do these results provide clear support for Actor-Observer Effect? Answer No. Results provide partial support Full support would require that Questioners attributed own behavior to situation, but Contestants’ behavior to dispositional qualities

nWhy do people fall prey to the Actor-Observer Effect? A Main Reason: See self behave differently across wide variety of situations Actor-Observer Effect

Self-Serving Attribution Bias Definition: nTendency to attribute own positive behavior to dispositional qualities, bot own negative behavior to situational Taking responsibility for positive behavior nSelf-enhancing bias Denying responsibility for negative behavior nSelf-protective bias

Self-Serving Attribution Bias Causes: Cognitive and Motivational Cognitive nPeople expect to succeed AND tend to attribute internal causes to expected events Motivational nPeople want to feel good about self

Self-Serving Attribution Bias Assumptions of Motivational Cause nAttributional style related to self- esteem nLower self-esteem people hold more realistic views of self than high self-esteem people nLewinsohn et al. (1980) tested second assumption

Prediction: nLow self-esteem people hold more realistic self-views because they do not engage in self-serving biases as much Lewinsohn et al., 1980

Prediction with Depressives nDepressives more realistic self- views than non-depressives nDepressives develop more unrealistic self-views as depression lifts Lewinsohn et al., 1980

Participants: nDepressives nPsychiatric patients nNormals Procedures: nGroup interacted nAfter each meeting, rated own and others’ social competence Thus, self-other ratings Lewinsohn et al., 1980

Results: nDepressives rated self as less socially competent and others agreed nNon-Depressed rated self as more socially competent than others rated them nOver course of treatment, depressives increasingly rated self more socially competent than others rated them Lewinsohn et al., 1980 Realistic self-view Unrealistic self-view

Ultimate Attribution Error nParallels Self-Serving Bias, but at level of social groups In-Group nPositive Beh = dispositional cause nNegative Beh = situational cause Out-Group nPositive Beh = situational cause nNegative Beh = dispositional cause

Ultimate Attribution Error Primary Cause Help people maintain positive feelings about in-group in comparison to out-group

Chatman & von Hippel (in press) Focused on Negative Behaviors Participants: nAfrican American and White Procedures: nParticipants approached on campus nAsked to read an applicant’s job application

Chatman & von Hippel (in press) Applicant was: nAfrican American OR nWhite in-group or out-group to participant Applicant was: nFired from last job OR nLaid off from last job Participants asked: nWhy applicant lost job nTo indicate whether cause was due to situation or person

Chatman & von Hippel (in press) Result: 1. African American participants: nSituational attributions for African American applicant nDispositional attributions for White applicant 2. White participants: nSituational attributions for White applicant nDispositional attributions for African American applicant

Chatman & von Hippel (in press) In-group applicant nMore situational attributions Out-group applicant nMore dispositional attributions

Activity What percentage of college students: nDrink no alcohol at all in typical week? nNever tried marijuana 28% 47%

False Consensus Effect Definition: nTendency to assume others are more similar to oneself than is really true nDrinkers should have overestimated percentage of students who drink in comparison to non-drinkers nPot smokers should have overestimated students who smoke pot in comparison to non-pot smokers

Ross, Greene, & House (1977) “The Sign Study” Purpose: nDemonstrate false consensus effect Prediction: nParticipants would assume others would behave the same as them

Ross, Greene, & House (1977) “The Sign Study” Procedures: nParticipants came to lab nAsked if they would wear sign around campus, and watch reactions of others nTold did not have to do it nAfter participants made choice, they rated how many other students made the same choice

Ross, Greene, & House (1977) “The Sign Study” Results: n50% said they would wear sign n50% said they would not Estimate Wear Sign 63 % would 37 % would not Not Wear Sign 23 % would 77 % would not Overestimated how many others would behave as they did

Cautionary Statement Judgment that one’s own behavior is in majority not necessary Example 1: nYou know you are in minority nYour estimate of how many others are like you (20%) exceeds estimates by those in majority (10%) Example 2: nYou know you are in minority (actual percentage = 20%) nYour estimate of how many others are like you (10%) less than actual percentage, but more than estimates by those in majority (5%)

Causes of False Consensus Effect Motivational: nJustifies one’s own beliefs and behaviors as good and right Cognitive: nUnsure about others’ beliefs/behaviors AND use own as estimate nHang out with similar others, so they come to mind more easily

Individual Differences in Attributional Biases Not all people engage in biases to same extent Locus of Control nInternals: tend to attribute causes to internal factors nExternals: Tend to attribute causes to external factors

Implications Actor-Observer Effect: nInternals less likely to attribute own behavior to situational factors nExternals more likely attribute behavior to situational factors

Implications Self-Serving Bias: nInternals more likely to accept responsibility for failure nInternals more likely to accept responsibility for success nExternals more likely deny responsibility for failure nExternals more likely deny responsibility for success