• To see if student participants would make the FAE even when they knew all the actors were playing a role
  

• Participants (P"s) randomly assigned tne of three roles:
  
• Game show host - asked to design their own questions 
• Contestant - tried to answer questions
• Audience member - watched the game show
• After the game show, audience members were asked to rank the intelligence of the hosts and contestants
  

• P"s consistently ranked the host as the most intelligent, even though they knew they were randomly assigned this role and that they had written the questions 

• They failed to attribute the host's behaviour to situational factors of the role they had been randomly assigned 
• instead attributed his performance to dispositional factors – intelligence 

• Limitations 
• Participants were all university students 
• They often listen to professors who ask questions and provide answers (like the game show host) and are seen as authority figures 
• The belief that authority figures who ask questions are intelligent could be a learned response, rather than attribution error
• Sample is not representative; small sample, part of specific school 
• Findings cannot be generalised to a wider population
  
  

• This study reflects and demonstrates that the FAE occurs because participants attributed the behaviour of hosts and contestants to dispositional factors (intelligence), rather than situational factors (role) 
  
• They argued that the observers and contestants had ignored the fact that the questioners had an unfair situational advantage (compiled the questions) and had overestimated dispositional factors in making their judgements. 
  
  

• To see whether participants would demonstrate FAE when attributing behaviour (to disposition), even if they knew that a specific role was assigned, and chance-directed behaviours to situation. 

• Asked American students to read essays written by fellow students about Fidel Castro, who were told to write either pro- or anti- Castro and guess the attitude of the writers towards Castro. 
  
• Half the participants were told the writers were free to choose their view on Castro in the essay (choice condition). 
  
• Other half were told the writers had no choice; experimenters assigned them a view on Castro (no choice condition). 

• Participants assumed the viewpoint of Castro in speeches reflected attitudes (dispositions) of the writers in both choice and no choice condition. 

• Although participants knew that the view of the writers was constrained by situation, but still opted for dispositional attribution. 
  

• Strengths 
• Laboratory experiment 
• Strict control over variables 
• Determined a cause-effect relationship 
• Findings support FAE 
  
  
• Limitations 
• Lacks ecological validity - cannot be generalised to the whole population 
• Participants (ethnocentric) 
• Thus, not representative sample, as all American P"s were used 
• Laboratory experiment 
• Artificial environment 
  
  

• Although the study did not demonstrate the researcher"s hypothesis, it supports the FAE because participants attributed the viewpoint in the Castro speech to dispositional factors (writers' attitude), rather than situational factors (assignment of the viewpoint) 
  
  

• When judging others, we usually do not have enough information about circumstances, so we use dispositional attributions 
  
• However, this is not supported by Ross et al. or Jones & Harris (1967) 
• P"s were told that hosts (Ross) and writers (Jones and Harris) were given a role 
• They had strong evidence to support a situational attribution however still manage to attribute their behaviour to the person"s disposition 
  
  
• Other psychologists argue that it is because information required to make situational attributions is generally less salient (obvious) than the information required to make dispositional attributions 
  
• This does not explain why situational informational is less salient to us even when it is present 
• This is also unsupported by Jones & Harris (1967) experiment 
• the evidence for situational attribution was made salient
  
  
• Miller et al (1978) argued that FAE provides us with a sense of control over the world 
  
• E.g. if we think that bad things happen to people because of dispositional rather than situational factors then we can believe that we have the power to stop bad things happening to us 
  
  
• Moghaddam (1998) believed that the FAE is a cultural bias, rather than attribution error 
  
• Culture determines whether we attribute causes as internal rather than external or vice versa 
• FAE may be culturally specific to Western societies that emphasise personal responsibility. 
• E.g. Legal system tends to hold people responsible for their actions rather than seeing them as victims of circumstances
• Miller (1984)
• Children growing up in Western cultures tend to make dispositional attributions for others' behaviour 
• Children growing up in India show opposite; tend to make situational attributions for others' behaviour 
• Especially when explaining wrongdoings 
  
  

• Another error in attribution is the self-serving bias (SSB). 
  
• SSB is the tendency to attribute success to stable, dispositional factors and failures to temporary, situational factors. 

• American football coaches and players tend to attribute: 
• wins to internal factors 
• E.g. ability, skill, good shape, natural talent 
• losses to external factors
  
• E.g. injuries, weather, fouls
  
  

• To investigate the effect of pupils' learning on teachers' SSB 

• Participants were psychology students 
  
• They taught two children how to multiply numbers by 10 and 20 
  
• Teaching was done via a one-way intercom 
  
• Taught in two phases: 
• how to multiple by 10 
• how to multiple by 20 
• After each phase, worksheets were made available to participants to assess children's learning progress
• Worksheets were made in a way that
• pupil A gave all correct answers on both sheets
• pupil B
• did poorly on both sheets (participant failed in teaching)
• did poorly on the first sheet and improved on the second (participant succeeded in teaching) 

• Participants attributed pupil B's improved performance to their abilities as a teacher
  
• Participants attributed pupil B's failure to the pupil's lack of ability.
  
  

• When attributing pupils' learning progress, teachers demonstrated SSB to enhance and protect the image of their own ability. 

• Strengths 
• Laboratory experiment 
• Strict control over variables 
• Determined a cause-effect relationship 
• Findings support SSB 
  
  
• Limitations 
• Lacks ecological validity - cannot be generalised to the whole population 
• Participants 
• psychology students 
• not representative sample 
• Laboratory experiment 
  
• Artificial environment 
  
  

• This study relates to the SSB because it demonstrates that 
• if students are successful, teachers will attribute it to dispositional factors (their teaching ability) 
• but if students are unsuccessful, teachers will attribute it to situational factors, external to themselves (child's ability) 
  
  

• Self-presentation and self-esteem 
• Attributing success to internal factors puts ourselves in a positive light to others - 'impression management'
• Dissociating ourselves from failure protects self-esteem
• Taking responsibility for success enhances self esteem Supporting Study 3: Greenberger et al. (1982) 
  
  

• To study the effect of good/bad performance on SSB in a public and private setting 

• Participants did either poorly or well on a task 
  
• Scores for task were given in either private or public 
  
• Participants were asked to make attributions for their score 

• In public, participants were more likely to attribute good scores to dispositional factors and poor scores to situational factors 
  
• In private, participants were more likely to attribute bad scores to dispositional factors 

• People employ SSB for self-presentation and self-protection. 
• They attribute success to dispositional factors for a positive impression in the eyes of others. 
• But they attribute failure to situational factors to hide and therefore protect their image. 
  
  

• Strengths 
• Laboratory experiment 
• Strict control over variables 
• Determined a cause-effect relationship 
• Findings support explanation for SSB 
  
  
• Limitations 
• Lacks ecological validity - cannot be generalised to the whole population 
• Participants 
• not representative sample 
• Laboratory experiment (artificial Environment) 
  
  

• This study supports the self-presentation explanation for SSB 
• Participants were more likely to demonstrate SSB in public 
  
  
• Miller and Ross (1975) argued that SSB was rational and not based on need for self-esteem 
  
• Attributions depend on expectation to succeed or fail 
• If the outcome (success or failure) is consistent with a person's expectation (to succeed or fail), they will make dispositional attributions 
• If someone expects to succeed and they do, they would attribute it to skill and ability
• If the outcome (success or failure) is inconsistent with a person's expectation (to succeed or fail), they will make situational attributions
• If someone expects to succeed and fails, then they would feel that external factors (e.g. luck) lead to this unexpected outcome
  
  
• Attributions depend on effort changes with success and failure 
• If performance is not improved with more effort, people will attribute their failure to the task (situational)
• If performance is improves with more effort, people will attribute their success to effort (dispositional)
  
  

• Improvement of self-esteem in future 
  
• Duval and Silvia (2002) suggested that people are more likely to make internal attributions if they believe they can improve the situation in future 
  
  
• Emotional state 
• Bad mood may reverse the SSB attributions
• Abramson et al. (1989) demonstrated that depressed people tend to attribute success to situational factors and failure to dispositional factors 
  
  
• Desire for positive self-esteem 
  
• Zuckerman (1979) reviewed studies of SSB and suggested that people's use of SSB depends on their desire to maintain self-esteem 
• Supported by cross cultural studies!
• Heine et al (1999) found that members of collectivist cultures are less likely to strive for positive self-esteem than members of individualistic cultures 
• Japanese have been found to be less likely to make SSB than Americans
  
  
• Culture 
  
  

• To investigate cultural differences of SSB in Japanese and US students 

• Participants were US and Japanese students 
  
• Asked participants to remember details of slides of scenes from unfamiliar countries 
  
• Participants were asked to explain performance 
  
  

• US participants tended to attribute success to ability 
  
• Japanese tended to attribute failure to their lack of ability 

• Individualist cultures (US) are more likely to demonstrate SSB 
  
• Collectivist cultures (Japan) are more likely to attribute failure to dispositional factors and success to situational factors - Modesty bias 

• Strengths 
• Laboratory experiment 
• Strict control over variables 
• Determined a cause-effect relationship 
• Findings provide evidence of a more cross cultural study of SSB 
• Limitations 
• Lacks ecological validity - cannot be generalised to the whole population 
• Participants 
• not representative sample 
• American or Japanese
• Students 
• Laboratory experiment
• Artificial environment 
  
  

• This study relates to cultural factors affecting SSB 
  
  

• Markus and Kitayama (1991) found that Japanese students estimated that 50% of peers were more intellectually capable than themselves, and American students estimated 30% 
  
• Chandler et al (1990) also found modesty bias in Japanese students 
  
• Watkins and Regmi (1990) found modesty bias in Nepalese students 
  
  

• In collectivist societies, interdependence is more highly valued than independence 
  
• People learn that they are more likely to be seen in a positive light if they are more self-effacing as opposed to self-enhancing 
• Bond, Leung, and Wan (1982) found that Chinese students who showed modesty bias rather than SSB were more popular with peers 
• Kashima and Triandis argue that it is due to collective nature of Asian societies 
• If people enhance self-esteem with group identity rather than individual accomplishment, they will less likely use SSB 
  
  

Conclusion

• Tendency to attribute others' behaviour to dispositional, rather than situational factors 
  
• Supported by 
• Ross et al., 1977
• Jones and Harris, 1967 
  
  
• There are many theories as to why people demonstrate this error 
• People do not have enough information to make situational attributions, so they have dispositional attributions
• Information to make situational attributions is less obvious than that of dispositional
• FAE gives a sense of control over the world in that we possess the ability for things to occur in life 
• FAE is a cultural bias, not attribution error 
  
  

• Tendency to attribute success to dispositional factors and failure to situational factors 
  
• Supported by 
• Lau & Russel (1980) 
• Johnson et al. (1964)
   
• There are many theories for why people demonstrate this error 
• Self-presentation and self-esteem
• Attributions depend on expectation to succeed or fail 
• Attributions depend on effort changes with success and failure 
  
  
• There are many factors that affect this error 
• Improvement of self-esteem in future 
• Emotional state
• Desire for positive self-esteem 
• Culture 
  
  

• The FAE and the SSB are two different errors in attribution that differ primarily is their general theoretical explanations of the causes of erroneous attribution:
• the FAE primarily describes a trend
• while the SSB makes predictions on the basis of factors such as
• While these errors are similar in many ways, they exhibit differences in their general theoretical explanation of the reasons behind attribution error, the strengths, weakness and approaches of research supporting these theoretical claims and the role of culture in each attribution error. 
  
• They are both errors in attribution, since they propose flaws in attribution theory and how people explain behaviour.