Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Several theories predict the fundamental attribution error, and thus both compete to explain it, and can be falsified if it does not occur. Some examples include:
Ross first came into prominence in 1977 when he coined the term "fundamental attribution error" to describe the finding that people are predisposed towards attributing another person's behavior to individual characteristics and attitudes, even when it is relatively clear that the person's behavior was a result of situational demands (Ross, 1977 ...
Fundamental attribution error, the tendency for people to overemphasize personality-based explanations for behaviors observed in others while under-emphasizing the role and power of situational influences on the same behavior [116] (see also actor-observer bias, group attribution error, positivity effect, and negativity effect). [130]
Additionally, there are many different types of attribution biases, such as the ultimate attribution error, fundamental attribution error, actor-observer bias, and hostile attribution bias. Each of these biases describes a specific tendency that people exhibit when reasoning about the cause of different behaviors. [3]
“In psychologist terms, we call that the fundamental attribution error,” Beilock said. “Part of that is feeling like you can trust one another, [that] you have a community. Then you can say ...
He worked at Duke University and from 1977 at Princeton University. A Review of General Psychology survey, published in 2002, ranked Jones as the 39th most cited psychologist of the 20th century. [1] Along with Keith E. Davis, he is known for developing correspondent inference theory within the field of psychological attribution.
The Fundamental attribution error) When asked to remember words relating to themselves, subjects had greater recall than those receiving other instructions. [1] In connection with the levels-of-processing effect, more processing and more connections are made within the mind in relation to a topic connected to the self. [29]
Specifically, it found support for three aspects of the ultimate attribution error: [1] more internal attribution for positive acts, and less internal attribution for negative acts, by ingroup than outgroup members; more attribution of outgroup members' failures to lack of ability, and more explaining away of outgroup members' successes;