Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Dispositional attribution (or internal attribution or personal attribution) is a phrase in personality psychology that refers to the tendency to assign responsibility for others' behaviors due to their inherent characteristics, such as their personality, beliefs, or ability, instead of attributing it to external (situational) influences such as the individual's environment or culture. [1]
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: Just-world fallacy. The belief that people get what they deserve and deserve what they get, the concept of which was first theorized by Melvin J. Lerner in 1977. [11]
The person–situation debate in personality psychology refers to the controversy concerning whether the person or the situation is more influential in determining a person's behavior. Personality trait psychologists believe that a person's personality is relatively consistent across situations. [ 1 ]
The attribution made (situational or dispositional) might affect a juror's punitiveness towards the defendant. [49] When jurors attribute a defendant's behavior to dispositional attributions they tend to be more punitive and are more likely find a defendant guilty [ 49 ] and to recommend a death sentence compared to a life sentence.
For example, in 1973, Darley and Batson conducted a study where they asked students at a seminary school to give a presentation in a separate building. They gave each individual participant a topic, and would then tell a participant that they were supposed to be there immediately, or in a few minutes, and sent them on their way to the building.
Hedonic relevance (also known as hedonistic relevance) is the tendency to attribute a behavior to dispositional factors rather than situational factors if the observed person’s behavior appears to be directly intended to benefit or harm us, or has such results. For example, Ali studied hard but still failed his maths test.
However, when an observer is explaining the behavior of another person, they are more likely to attribute this behavior to the actors' personality rather than situational factors, also known as dispositional attribution. [4] For example, a politician explaining why they voted against war may say it is because the war is not needed. [3]
Trait ascription and the cognitive bias associated with it have been a topic of active research for more than three decades. [2] [3] Like many other cognitive biases, trait ascription bias is supported by a substantial body of experimental research and has been explained in terms of numerous theoretical frameworks originating in various disciplines.