Fundamental Attribution Error
{
Ross et al. (1977)
Aim: to determine if participants would make the fundamental attribution
error even when they knew that all the actors were simply playing a role
METHODOLOGY
Research Method:
Experimental Method / Laboratory Observation
Experimental Design:
independent measures
Sampling:
opportunity sampling
Independent Variable:
the role of participants (game show host,
contestants, audience)
ranking of intelligence
Dependant Variable:
Confounding Variable:
real intelligence of participants, demand
characteristics
Controls:
Roles of participants were randomly assigned, background of participants, setting
Blind Technique:
Single-blind
EVALUATION
Strengths:
roles randomly assigned: reduces researcher bias
considered ethical measures
reliable
both genders are considered
Weakness:
sample not representative of general population
low ecological validity
low cross-cultural validity
no original hypothesis
no triangulation
Gender Influence:
Both genders were considered in the study
Culture Influence:
Participants were all American, thus there is a low crosscultural validity.
Empirical Studies that Challenge/Support:
Jones & Harris (1967)
Participants of this study were asked to rate a writer’s liking
for Fidel Castro based on an essay. In one case they were informed that the writer’s view of Fidel Castro was determined
by a coin toss, and in the other case the writer’s view of Fidel
Castro was freely chosen. The participants rated the writers
who had written of Fidel Castro positively as in favor of him.
However in the other case, the participants rated the writers
similarly despite knowing that the writer’s view was randomly
determined. This was due to the fundamental attribution error.
}
PROCEDURE
1. Recruit participants—get
them to sign consent forms
2. Assign roles of game show
host, contestant and audience members randomly to
participants
3. Role-play a game show using
actors
4. Participants (audience) rank
intelligence of each actor
5. Debrief the study to the participants
APPLICATION
professionals (such as doctors and teachers)
are misunderstood to be knowledgeable in
subjects that are not within their area of expertise
people judge actors based on the characters
they usually play on TV/movie
placing the blame on the individual is common practice in western culture; people are
more likely to say that a murder is evil than
to refer to environmental factors as explanations; juries look for a satisfactory motive if
they're to convict someone of murder
RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS
Results: Participants consistently ranked the
game show host as the smartest, even though
they knew the roles were randomly assigned.
Conclusion: Participants underestimated the
situational factors (game show host being allowed to ask question) and over estimated dispositional factors (host’s intelligence)
ETHICS
lack of informed consent
deception
Possible feelings of embarrassment
Experiment was debriefed
had right to withdraw