Changes in Attributions Over Time: The Ephemeral Fundamental Attribution Error

1991 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 182-193 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jerry M. Burger
Keyword(s):  
Fundamental Attribution Error ◽  
Attribution Error ◽  
Over Time

Control charts: Minimizing fundamental attribution error in appraisal decisions

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas H. Stone ◽  
I. M. Jawahar ◽  
Ken Eastman ◽  
Gabi Eissa
Keyword(s):  
Control Charts ◽  
Fundamental Attribution Error ◽  
Attribution Error

The perception of drinking roles by recovering problem drinkers

1981 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 747-754 ◽  
Author(s):  
John McCartney ◽  
Patrick J. O'Donnell
Keyword(s):  
Role Conflict ◽  
Drinking Patterns ◽  
Problem Drinkers ◽  
Negative Effects ◽  
Fundamental Attribution Error ◽  
Controlled Drinking ◽  
Attribution Error ◽  
Different Characteristics

SynopsisThe perception of and attitude to drinking patterns in recovering problem drinkers (N= 29) is analysed, utilizing a similar methodology to that of Richard & Burley (1978). Fault is found, however, in the latter study both in a failure to define variables and in the authors' statistical handling of the results. In the present study, it was found that controlled drinking is only seen as close to the problem drinker's concept of himself when it entails reasonably high levels of consumption. The importance of this finding for therapy is outlined. The possible negative effects of role conflict are mentioned. It is also found that problem drinkers perceive themselves as having quite different characteristics from those they themselves attribute to alcoholics. This finding is interpreted in terms of the fundamental attribution error (Jones & Nisbett, 1972).

scholarly journals 'Do You see what I'm Dealing with here?' Vicious circles in conflict

2014 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 30-38
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Biases ◽  
The Self ◽  
Fundamental Attribution Error ◽  
Attribution Error ◽  
Biases And Heuristics ◽  
Bullying And Harassment

We know that our thinking is affected by conflict; this applies to groups and nations as much as to individuals. Mediators are at the sharp end of this phenomenon, and those we work with often find each other’s behaviour at best inexplicable and at worst malicious. This article considers how biases and heuristics (mental shortcuts) can exacerbate disputes. Two cognitive biases in particular can contribute to the growth of conflict: the fundamental attribution error and the self-serving bias. Using a workplace mediation case study the article traces the step-by-step mechanics of conflict in people’s thinking and its tendency to set in motion vicious circles of suspicion and defence. It goes on to provide a critique of bullying and harassment policies before proposing that they begin with a mediation stage in order to combat attribution errors by bringing more data into play.

Who or What is to Blame? Personality and Situational Attributions of Robot Behavior

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Autumn Edwards ◽  
Chad Edwards
Keyword(s):  
Social Robot ◽  
Current Experiment ◽  
Fundamental Attribution Error ◽  
Robot Behavior ◽  
Attribution Error

The Fundamental Attribution Error (FAE) is the tendency for people to over-emphasize dispositional or personality-based explanations for others’ behavior while under-emphasizing situational explanations. Compared to people, current robots are less agentic and autonomous and more driven by programming, design, and humans-in-the-loop. People do nonetheless assign them agency and intentionality and blame. The purpose of the current experiment is to determine whether people commit the FAE in response to the behaviors of a social robot.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document