Actor Observer Bias vs self serving bias

This is related to actor-observer bias, where an actor tends to explain his or her behavior by situational factors while an observer tends to explain the actor’s behavior based on stable internal states. This can contribute to prejudice and stereotyping and lead to conflict. The fundamental attribution error is so powerful that people often overlook even obvious situational influences on behavior. That is to say, we tend to assume that the behavior of another person is due to a trait of that person, underestimating the role of context. A few common such biases include the fundamental attribution error, the self-serving bias, the actor-observer bias, and the just-world hypothesis.įundamental attribution error occurs when people tend to overemphasize internal factors as explanations for the behavior of other people (in comparison to how we explain our own behavior). People are susceptible to bias and error when making attributions about themselves and others. An explanatory attribution is an attempt to understand the world and seek reasons for a particular event. An interpersonal attribution is an attempt to explain the reasons for an event based on an interaction between two or more individuals. “Attribution theory” is an umbrella term for various models that attempt to understand this process. One of the central concerns of social psychology is understanding the ways in which people explain, or “attribute,” events and behavior. We tend to believe that our team wins because it’s better, but loses for reasons it cannot control (Roesch & Amirkham, 1997).Attribution theory attempts to explain the processes by which individuals explain, or attribute, the causes of behavior and events. For example, we might tell ourselves that the other team has more experienced players or that the referees were unfair (external), the other team played at home (unstable), and the cold weather affected our team’s performance (uncontrollable).

In contrast, we are more likely to make external, unstable, and uncontrollable attributions when our favorite team loses. For example, we might tell ourselves that our team is talented (internal), consistently works hard (stable), and uses effective strategies (controllable). Research shows that we make internal, stable, and controllable attributions for our team’s victory ( Figure) (Grove, Hanrahan, & McInman, 1991). Obviously, those things that we have the power to control would be labeled controllable (Weiner, 1979).Ĭonsider the example of how we explain our favorite sports team’s wins. Controllability refers to the extent to which the circumstances that are associated with a given outcome can be controlled. The circumstances are considered stable if they are unlikely to change. In this context, stability refers the extent to which the circumstances that result in a given outcome are changeable. One model of attribution proposes three main dimensions: locus of control (internal versus external), stability (stable versus unstable), and controllability (controllable versus uncontrollable).

We can understand self-serving bias by digging more deeply into attribution, a belief about the cause of a result. You can imagine that if people always made situational attributions for their behavior, they would never be able to take credit and feel good about their accomplishments. The tendency of an individual to take credit by making dispositional or internal attributions for positive outcomes but situational or external attributions for negative outcomes is known as the self-serving bias (Miller & Ross, 1975). When you do well at a task, for example acing an exam, it is in your best interest to make a dispositional attribution for your behavior (“I’m smart,”) instead of a situational one (“The exam was easy,”). Following an outcome, self-serving bias are those attributions that enable us to see ourselves in favorable light (for example, making internal attributions for success and external attributions for failures).

Actor Observer Bias vs self serving bias