Attribution & Attitudes
- Explain the fundamental attribution error and the actor–observer difference
- Distinguish dispositional from situational attributions
- Describe how attitudes and behavior influence each other, including cognitive dissonance
Explaining behavior: attribution
Attribution theory describes how we explain others’ behavior — by their disposition (internal traits) or their situation (external circumstances). The fundamental attribution error is our tendency to overestimate disposition and underestimate situation when judging others: we assume the driver who cut us off is a jerk (disposition) rather than rushing to an emergency (situation). Interestingly, we flip this for ourselves — the actor–observer bias — blaming our own missteps on circumstances. The self-serving bias takes credit for successes (disposition) but blames failures on the situation.
Attitudes shape actions — and vice versa
An attitude is a feeling, often rooted in belief, that predisposes us to respond in a particular way. Attitudes guide behavior especially when they are strong and specific. But behavior also changes attitudes. The foot-in-the-door phenomenon shows that agreeing to a small request makes people more likely to comply with a larger one later. Role-playing shapes attitudes too, as Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Study dramatically (if controversially) suggested when students absorbed assigned guard and prisoner roles.
Cognitive dissonance
Leon Festinger’s cognitive dissonance theory explains why actions can reshape beliefs. When our behavior clashes with our attitudes, we feel an uncomfortable tension (dissonance), and to reduce it we often change our attitude to match what we did. In Festinger’s classic study, participants paid only $1 to lie that a boring task was fun later rated the task as more enjoyable than those paid $20 — with little external justification ($1), they reduced dissonance by convincing themselves they had actually liked it. Dissonance is strongest when we feel we freely chose the conflicting behavior.
A student sees a classmate fail a quiz and immediately thinks "he’s just lazy and not very smart." When the same student fails a quiz herself, she explains it by saying "the test was unfair and I was exhausted." Identify the biases at work and explain them.
- 1.Analyze the judgment of the classmate: she attributes his failure to internal traits (laziness, low ability) while ignoring situational factors — this is the fundamental attribution error.
- 2.Analyze the judgment of herself: she attributes her own failure to external circumstances (an unfair test, exhaustion) rather than to her ability.
- 3.Name the contrast: explaining others by disposition but oneself by situation is the actor–observer bias.
- 4.Note the self-protective angle: blaming failure on the situation while she would likely credit a success to her own ability reflects the self-serving bias.
A commuter is bumped by a stranger rushing through a train station and thinks, "How rude and inconsiderate that person is," without considering the person might be late for a family emergency. This snap judgment best illustrates:
Keep the biases straight by their target. The fundamental attribution error is about judging others (overweighting their disposition). The self-serving bias is about judging yourself (crediting your successes, excusing your failures). Ask "whose behavior is being explained?" first.
Volunteers who were paid only $1 to tell others that a dull task was interesting later reported actually enjoying the task more than volunteers paid $20. Which theory best explains this result?
For cognitive dissonance, look for the setup: a person acts against their attitude with weak external justification, then changes the attitude to match the act. Low pay/reward for the counter-attitudinal behavior increases dissonance and therefore attitude change.
Answer the 2 checkpoints as you read.
Sign in to save your progress