The actor-observer asymmetry in attribution: A (surprising) meta-analysis

Article (PDF Available)inPsychological Bulletin 132(6):895-919 · November 2006with 240 Reads
DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.132.6.895 · Source: PubMed
Abstract
The actor-observer hypothesis (E. E. Jones & R. E. Nisbett, 1971) states that people tend to explain their own behavior with situation causes and other people's behavior with person causes. Widely known in psychology, this asymmetry has been described as robust, firmly established, and pervasive. However, a meta-analysis on 173 published studies revealed average effect sizes from d = -0.016 to d = 0.095. A moderator analysis showed that the asymmetry held only when the actor was portrayed as highly idiosyncratic, when hypothetical events were explained, when actor and observer were intimates, or when free-response explanations were coded. In addition, the asymmetry held for negative events, but a reverse asymmetry held for positive events. This valence effect may indicate a self-serving pattern in attribution, but across valence, no actor-observer asymmetry exists.
A preview of the PDF is not available
  • Article
    Full-text available
    Apologies are assumed to be an effective pathway to the restoration of victims of torts. Accordingly, initiatives to facilitate their provision in legal contexts are currently being advocated. A crucial question, however, is whether the apologies that perpetrators provide in these contexts may live up to such expectations. Do perpetrators' apologies in response to torts convey the content that victims desire, and how may this affect their remedial effectiveness? The present research examined what content victims desire, and perpetrators provide in apology in response to personal injury incidents. In two studies, we demonstrate that (a) perpetrators provide less comprehensive apologies than victims desire, and (b) their apologies thereby are less effective at restoring them. These differences were explained by their differing perception of torts, such that perpetrators regard their transgressions as less severe and intentional, and themselves as less blameworthy than victims do, and consequently offer less comprehensive apologies than victims desire. Therefore, subjectiveness in victims' and perpetrators' perception of torts may undermine the remedial effectiveness of legal apology.
  • Article
    Full-text available
    There is a growing debate about the relationship between self-perceived agency-communion and self-esteem. One viewpoint for this debate is offered by the Dual Perspective Model, a novel theoretical framework that introduces the agent and the recipient as two fundamental perspectives in social perception. Building on this model, we expected higher importance of self-ascribed agency for self-esteem in the agent perspective than in the recipient perspective and a higher importance of self-ascribed communion for self-esteem in the recipient than in the agent perspective. However, the meta-analysis of six experiments (N = 659, 68% females) showed no interaction of the perspectives and self-ascribed agency and communion in predicting self-esteem. These findings demonstrate that the relationship between agency-communion and self-esteem seems to be fairly independent of one’s temporary mindset.
  • Article
    Full-text available
    People often prioritize their own interests, but also like to see themselves as moral. How do individuals resolve this tension? One way to both maximize self-interest and maintain a moral self-image is to misremember the extent of one’s selfishness. Here, we tested this possibility. Across three experiments, participants decided how to split money with anonymous partners, and were later asked to recall their decisions. Participants systematically recalled being more generous in the past than they actually were, even when they were incentivized to recall accurately. Crucially, this effect was driven by individuals who gave less than what they personally believed was fair, independent of how objectively selfish they were. Our findings suggest that when people’s actions fall short of their own personal standards, they may misremember the extent of their selfishness, thereby warding off negative emotions and threats to their moral self-image.
  • Article
    The goal of the current study was to examine whether perspective-taking could be an effective method for reducing the actor-observer bias seen in judgments of infidelity. Specifically, 708 adults judged the extent to which 32 behaviors were indicative of infidelity after being assigned to one of nine conditions in which the person engaging in infidelity (actor, partner, stranger) and the perspective-taking instructions (perspective-taking, stay objective, no instructions) were manipulated. Overall, the actor-observer and perspective-taking manipulations significantly affected judgments of the technology/online and solitary forms of infidelity. Adults in the perspective-taking condition judged their partner’s and a stranger’s technology/online behaviors as less indicative of infidelity than their own and their partner’s solitary behaviors as more indicative of infidelity than their own or a stranger’s. These results indicate that perspective-taking impacts infidelity judgments but only for certain behaviors. Implications and recommendations are outlined for clinicians and researchers working with and studying romantic couples.
  • Article
    Full-text available
    Understanding how people explain is a core task for cognitive science. In this Opinion article, we argue that research on explanation would benefit from more engagement with how the cognitive systems involved in generating explanations (e.g., attention, long-term memory) shape the outputs of this process. Although it is clear that these systems do shape explanation, surprisingly little research has investigated how they might do so. We outline the proposed mechanistic approach to explanation and illustrate it with an example—the recent research that suggests explanations exhibit a bias toward inherent information. Taking advantage of what we know about the operating parameters of the human mind is likely to yield new insights into how people come up with explanations.
  • Article
    Past work suggests that fatigue reduces prosociality, but it remains unclear whether lay perceivers account for fatigue when judging moral character. The current work presents six studies suggesting that people operate as fatigue compatibilists: Perceivers expected fatigued actors to help less than refreshed actors, and they rated non-helpers as more fatigued than their refreshed counterparts, but perceivers ignored fatigue when evaluating moral character. Instead, ratings of actor morality hinged on whether actors helped or not, regardless of actor fatigue. Findings held for a variety of dependent measures, across student and online samples, for within- and between-subjects designs, regardless of lay willpower beliefs, for both prescribed and proscribed actions, and for both mundane and extreme levels of helping and fatigue. These findings suggest that lay perceivers surmise that fatigue reduces actors’ likelihood of acting prosocially, but they interpret fatigue as an insufficient reason for moral failings.
  • Article
    It is necessary to expand the literature on social insurance preferences and examine how perceptions on the causes of staying unemployed influence preferences for unemployment benefits. First, this paper argues that people have lower support for unemployment benefits if they attribute unemployment to individual characteristics. Second, it is argued that the effect of individual attribution of unemployment on support for unemployment benefits is larger for people with low risk of unemployment. People who are less likely to receive future benefits are more sensitive to the possibility that receivers are free-riders who do not deserve benefits. Supporting individual level evidence is provided by statistical analysis using the European Social Survey (ESS).
  • Article
    Children's evaluations of moral and epistemic agents crucially depend on their discerning that an agent's actions were performed intentionally. Here we argue that children's epistemic and moral judgments reveal practices of forgiveness and blame, trust and mistrust, and objection or disapproval and that such practices are supported by children's monitoring of the situational constraints on agents. Inherent in such practices is the understanding that agents are responsible for actions performed under certain conditions but not others. We discuss a range of situational constraints on children's early epistemic and moral evaluations and clarify how these situational constraints serve to support children's identification of intentional actions. By monitoring the situation, children distinguish intentional from less intentional action and selectively hold epistemic and moral agents accountable. We argue that these findings inform psychological and philosophical theorizing about attributions of moral and epistemic agency and responsibility.
  • Conference Paper
    Full-text available
    The authors explore whether people explain intentional actions performed by groups differently from actions performed by individuals. A theoretical framework is offered that distinguishes between 2 modes of explanation: the agent's reasons (beliefs or desires in light of which the agent decided to act) and causal histories of reasons (CHRs; factors that preceded and brought about the agent's reasons). The authors develop the hypothesis that people use more CHR explanations when explaining group actions than when explaining individual actions. Study 1 demonstrates this asymmetry. Studies 2 and 3 explore 2 necessary conditions for the asymmetry: that the group be perceived as an aggregate of individual actors rather than as a jointly acting group and that explainers have general information available about the group. Discussion focuses on people's perception of groups as entities and agents.
  • Article
    • Conducted 2 experiments with 144 undergraduates to assess (a) differences in the information available to persons trying to understand the causes of their own behavior (actors) vs those trying to understand the causes of another's behavior (observers) and (b) the effects of information differences on causal explanations. In Exp I, actors reported positive behaviors to be less distinctive and more consistent with past behavior than did observers, whereas the reverse was true for negative behaviors. Consistent with this difference, actors attributed desirable behaviors more to their own internal dispositions than did observers, whereas the opposite occurred for undesirable behaviors. In Exp II, when all Ss were given the consensus, distinctiveness, and consistency information generated by actors in Exp I, both actors and observers attributed positive acts more to internal factors than negative acts. When given the information generated by the observers, neither actors nor observers exhibited this bias. Thus, when given the same information, actors and observers no longer showed differences in causal explanations. (23 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved) • Conducted 2 experiments with 144 undergraduates to assess (a) differences in the information available to persons trying to understand the causes of their own behavior (actors) vs those trying to understand the causes of another's behavior (observers) and (b) the effects of information differences on causal explanations. In Exp I, actors reported positive behaviors to be less distinctive and more consistent with past behavior than did observers, whereas the reverse was true for negative behaviors. Consistent with this difference, actors attributed desirable behaviors more to their own internal dispositions than did observers, whereas the opposite occurred for undesirable behaviors. In Exp II, when all Ss were given the consensus, distinctiveness, and consistency information generated by actors in Exp I, both actors and observers attributed positive acts more to internal factors than negative acts. When given the information generated by the observers, neither actors nor observers exhibited this bias. Thus, when given the same information, actors and observers no longer showed differences in causal explanations. (23 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
  • Article
    Negative (adverse or threatening) events evoke strong and rapid physiological, cognitive, emotional, and social responses. This mobilization of the organism is followed by physiological, cognitive, and behavioral responses that damp down, minimize, and even erase the impact of that event. This pattern of mobilization-minimization appears to be greater for negative events than for neutral or positive events. Theoretical accounts of this response pattern are reviewed. It is concluded that no single theoretical mechanism can explain the mobilization-minimization pattern, but that a family of integrated process models, encompassing different classes of responses, may account for this pattern of parallel but disparately caused effects.
  • Article
    Four experiments supported the hypothesis that people see themselves as having rich, multifaceted, and adaptive personalities that result in the perceptions that they possess more traits than other people and are less predictable than other people. Experiment 1 showed that people perceived themselves as having more of opposing pairs of traits than they perceived others as having when they rated both self and an acquaintance on each trait in the pair separately, (e.g., serious and carefree). When the ratings were made on bipolar scales (e.g., serious vs. carefree), the self was rated as closer to the midpoint than was the acquaintance. Experiment 2 showed that the latter result reflects people's belief that they possess both traits in opposing pairs. Subjects in Experiment 2 also rated their behavior as less predictable than that of others. Experiment 3 replicated Experiment 2 and showed that people perceive that they have both members of pairs of opposing traits independent of the social desirability and observability of the traits. Experiment 4 indicated that familiar and liked persons are perceived to have more traits than unfamiliar and disliked persons.
  • Article
    This study addressed itself to the causes attributed to extramarital sexual involvement, and the association of these causes with sexual jealousy. The results did not show any significant actor-observed differences; in general both spouses attributed their own and their partners' affairs to similar causes. Most frequently mentioned were situational factors and a need for novelty and excitement. Only one sex difference did show up: a need for sexual variety was more often attributed to males than to females. The attribution of marital deprivation and aggression were significantly related to jealousy. Among males, the attribution of a need for variety was linked to jealousy, while among females, perceived perceived pressure of the extramarital partner appeared to be an important factor. Other situational attributions were not related to jealousy. It is suggested that jealousy has a somewhat different meaning for males and females, and that this difference is typical for sex roles in general.
  • Article
    -This experiment assessed how children of high and low social status in rhe classroom attributed the causes of positive and negative interpersonal outcomes for themselves and others. 80 fourth, fifth, and sixth grade children (n = 40 males and 40 females) were classified as'high or low social status using 'a sociornetric technique. Subjects were asked to attribute the causes of 24 written descriptions of positive and negative interpersonal outcomes. Children of high status tended to attribute the causes of positive outcomes internally and negative ones externally, while lows were more external for positive and internal for negative outcomes. Children of high status tended to view the causes of their own and another's behavior for positive outcomes congruently, whereas lows acted according to the Jones and Nisbert (1971) actor-observer bias. Implications were made for the cognitive correlates of social interaction. Classroom situations provide feedback to children about the effects of their behavior in social encounters as weU. as on achievement tasks. Children's beliefs about the causes of their acceptance or rejection by others in these classroom social encounters can have particular significance for their own self-evaluations, subsequent interpersonal behavior, and academic performance (Ames, Ames, & Felker, 1977; Feather & Simon, 1971; Weiner, 1974). The purpose of the present study was to determine how children's explanations of positive and negative encounters are influenced by their beliefs about their social competence in school1 situations. While there has been a great deal of research on the antecedents and consequents of children's explanations for achievement outcomes, there has been relatively little research on their explanations for interpersonal outcomes ( Arnes, Ames, & Felker, 1976; Weiner, 1974; Weiner, Frieze, Kukla, Reed, Rest, & Rosenbaum, 197 1 ) . Predictions for how persons explain success and failure achievement outcomes can be readily derived from Weiner's ( 1974) attributional analysis of achievement motivation and Heider's balance theory (Feather, 1971; Heider, 1958). Perso,ns with a positive view about their achiwement capabilities tend to view success as a function of internal, personal characteristics and failure as a function of external, situational factors. In contrast individuals with a negative view of their achievement capabilities tend to view success as being more externally caused and failure as more internally caused.
  • Article
    Actors' and observers' attributions for performance on an ability test were assessed. Halt of the actors were told they had performed well on the test, and half that they had performed poorly. In addition, half of the subjects gave their attributions immediately after the test, and halt 3 days later. As predicted, actors who believed they had been successful gave attributions that were more dispositional .3 days after the test than when asked immediately afterward. Actors who believed they had tailed gave attributions that were more situational 3 days later than immediately afterward. Observers gave attributions that did not differ over time. The results are interpreted in support of a motivational explanation for temporal effects on actors' attributions.
  • Article
    Although a substantial body of research exists concerning the types of causal attributions which are made to explain achievement outcomes, relatively little attention has been paid to the effects which the measurement techniques used have on the attributions elicited. Two methodological factors—questionwording style and research context—were hypothesized to affect the results of attribution studies. A meta-analysis of 64 studies indicated that the impact of task outcome (success vs. failure) on attributions varied as a function of both question-wording style and research context. In general, support was found for attributional egotism, but outcome was found to have a larger effect for informational (e.g., "How hard did you try?") as opposed to the more traditional causal (e.g., "How much was effort a cause of your success?") wording of the attribution questions. Research conducted in natural contexts found larger outcome effects (specifically for ability and task-difficulty attributions) than did studies conducted in experimental contexts.