Peoples actions are subject to criticism despite their magnitude, timing and personality traits. It is inevitable to judge hence considered human nature. The fundamental attribution error depicts a significant problem where too much emphasis is put on a person’s characteristics disregarding situational factors which are equally essential. An example of the fundamental attribution error is where an aggressive person is judged to have predisposed traits that cause the aggressiveness instead of assessing the situation that might have provoked aggressiveness (Martha, 2014). The fundamental attribution error can be eradicated by avoiding generalizations such as black people are illiterate. We should try to see the good in every person as it will help us achieve a better understanding of their character. When judging someone, we should put ourselves in that person’s shoes and see how we would react to avoid bias (Norma, 2005). If you still do not understand why the person reacted the way they did, asking the right leading questions may provide insight towards understanding precise cognitive actions.
Introduction
The attribution theory states that we try to accentuate someone’s behavior by attributing to a cause (Floyd, 2017). On the other hand, the fundamental attribution error arises from considering personal traits and disregarding situational factors when judging a person’s behavior (Gordon, 2013). The fundamental attribution error dates back to 1950s where social psychologists Fritz and Gustav studied lay perceivers and how they influenced human behavior. The term fundamental attribution error was then created in 1977 by social psychologist Lee Ross. There have been controversies regarding the suitability of the name to the phenomenon.
An example of the fundamental attribution error shows that when something bad happens, people blamed the victim’s behavior 65 percent of the time. When subjected to the same parameters and serve as the victim, they blamed the situation 44 percent of the time. The findings indicate the tendency of people to judge others harshly while being lenient on themselves. People are more likely to explain their behavior based on external factors and explain the behavior of others based on internally predisposed traits.
The fundamental attribution error has evidence from three lines of research. The first one shows how people base stable personality traits from their observation while it could be situational. In a classroom setting, classmates are more likely to blame nervousness on their character or personality traits while anxiety provokes it. Every person experiences a form of anxiety while in front of a crowd and our case, the class presentation. Nervousness is as a result of the situation and not someone’s character.
From the second line of research is in line with surprise reactions. It shows that a normal person is less likely to help out voluntarily in case of an emergency when other people are around. Most people would help out only if they are called upon by an experimenter. Also, people are more likely to engage in sad, torturing practices such as picking on someone just because they belong to a superior social class. Such behavior gives room for debate among psychologists. A negligible variation in a situation causes such a significant change in people’s behavior reaching extents like people engaging in immorality since their social class dictates that.
The third line of study stresses cultural disparity in explaining the perceivers perception. Western cultures dwell on individualism while Asian culture dwells on collectivism. In individualism, a person is treated as an independent entity and behavioral explanations are based on a person’s character. On the other hand, collectivism emphasizes situations being the causative agents for certain behavior. In the case of a crime, western cultures treat the crime as an individuals character display while the Asian cultures scan the situation to understand the triggers.
Review of article 1
Protestants are dispositionally focused.
The article by Yexin Jessica Li, Kathryn A. Johnson from Arizona State University, Adam B. Cohen, Melissa J. Williams Emory University and Zhansheng Chen, University of Hong Kong shows the religious disparity between Catholics and Protestants. Consequential evidence outlines the individualism in protestants compared to their Catholic counterparts. From the four studies conducted, the researchers made conclusive inferences regarding both religions. In the first study, 102 Catholics and 131 Protestants, the Catholics made more generalized judgment based on external factors unlike Protestants who emphasized individual characteristics (Barrett, Patock-Peckham, Hutchinson, " Nagoshi, 2005; Cohen, Shariff, " Hill, 2008; Hunsberger, Alisat, Pancer, " Pratt, 1996).
From study two, 154 Protestants and 118 Catholics, the study showed that Protestants believe more in the soul thus forming the basis for the difference in their diverse judgment. As a psychologist, the best way to evaluate the magnitude of the effects of ‘belief in the soul’ situational characteristic is regulating belief. With 68 Catholics and 75 Protestants, the third study shows that predisposed religious education makes protestants believe more in the soul than their Catholic counterparts. The final study constituting 55 protestants the study shows that increasing belief in the soul heightened dispositioned judgment among Protestants (Cooper, Mirabile " Scher, 2005).
Review of article 2
Aging, Cognitive Complexity, and the Fundamental Attribution Error.
The second journal article Aging, Cognitive Complexity, and the Fundamental Attribution Error by Katherine J. Follett and Thomas M. Hess form an essential part of the research concerned with providing insight on the error. The researchers sought evidence to determine the variations for the fundamental attribution error based on age and intellectual complexity. The study was conducted by analyzing information from three groups adults each having thirty-seven people. The first group comprised young adult with a mean age of 19, the second group had middle-aged adults with a mean age of 47 and lastly the third group of older adults having a mean age of 69.
The research shows that the older group of adult were less susceptible to effects from the fundamental attribution error. The older adults based behavior on ones situations unlike younger adults who pinned it on character. In measuring cognitive complexity, the older adults may have a problem remembering everything that is said in the videos leading to a small increase in bias. The overall research thus shows that the middle-aged adults are least prone to the fundamental attribution error and its relentless effects.
Biblical integration
There exists substantial evidence from the bible supporting eradication of the fundamental attribution error. James 1:19 says “Let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, and slow to anger”. From the verse, the Bible clearly states that individuals should learn to listen first before jumping into conclusion. Being quick to hear is listening. Pre-judging anyone in a situation is characterized by biased thus getting the wrong message. For instance, judging someone’s intentions from the first impression might result in misinterpreted information.
Proverbs 18:13 says “If one answers before he hears, it is his folly and shame.” This verse states that a person should hear what the other person is saying before they talk. They should be ashamed of themselves if they forego the scripture and speak before listening keenly. The reason for this is that a person is likely to speak ill or wrong of the other person before understanding the dynamics of their situational factors. Listening allows for proper understanding, eradicating stereotypes and performing accurate judgment. In the long run, we deal with the fundamental attribution error and the adverseness of its effects.
Ephesians 4:29 says “Don’t use foul or abusive language. Let everything you say be good and helpful, so that your words will be an encouragement to those who hear them.” The verse emphasizes the same teaching as the two preceding verses. Achieving the ultimate, fundamental attribution error-free society is necessary in promoting peace and harmony. We should purpose to believe and see the best in others to understand them. The tongue is a strong element because whatever comes out of the mouth cannot be reversed. Hurtful words can destroy an entity beyond repair.
Conclusion
The fundamental attribution error and correspondence bias are used interchangeably. Behavior is a result of character and current situations. Taking the case of good drivers, most will confess their expertise when talking about themselves. Critically analyzing the situation, driving depends on mood and urgency of the situation the driver is subjected to. Suppose the driver is late for an appointment or they are carrying a sick person, they are more likely to drive hurriedly and cut through traffic. If the situation is cool, calm and relaxed like going for shopping in the mid-morning, the driver is likely to follow all traffic rules and be a bit judgmental on other drivers who seem to be in a hurry.
Overcoming the fundamental attribution error is preceded by understanding the diverse dynamics leading to its existence. People are only aware of their character and situations that is why they blame their misgivings on situations. Often, we do not understand the predicament of others thus blaming their actions on character instead of the situation they were subjected to. Instead of judging people’s actions and attributing behavior to character, we should be slow to judge and try to understand why that person acts in a certain way.
We should refrain from generalizing people especially as a way of explaining behavior. We should strive to assume good intentions from other. The first impression may not give a clear picture of one’s intentions thus it is necessary to give a benefit of doubt. If you cannot get first-hand information or answers regarding a person’s behavior, try putting yourself in their shoes and making excuses on their behalf. This is the equivalent of finding a substantial situational trait to attribute their behavior too. We can find sense in putting ourselves in the other persons shoes and figure out how we would react if we were in the same situation. If all the methods fail then the bets are consulting the person to get a solid explanation as to why they did what they did.
References
Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., " Akert, R. M. (2005). Social psychology.
Floyd, K., Schrodt, P., Erbert, L., " Trethewey, A. (2017). Exploring Communication Theory: Making Sense of Us. Taylor " Francis.
Moskowitz, G. B. (Ed.). (2013). Cognitive social psychology: The Princeton symposium on the legacy and future of social cognition. Psychology Press.
Gawronski, B. (2004). Theory-based bias correction in dispositional inference: The fundamental attribution error is dead, long live the correspondence bias. European Review of Social Psychology, 15, 183-217
Cooper, J., Mirabile, R., " Scher, S.J, (2005). Actions and attitudes: The theory of cognitive dissonance. In T.C. Brock " M.C. Green (Eds.), Persuasion: Psychological insights and perspectives (pp. 63-79). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, Volume 57, Issue 4, 1 July 2002, Pages P312–P323
Fundamental attribution error: (Social psychology book, Chapter 19)
Scriptural reference 1: Proverbs 18:13 (English Standard Version)
If one answers before he hears, it is his folly and shame.
Scriptural reference 2: Ephesians 4:29 (New Living Translation)
Don’t use foul or abusive language. Let everything you say be good and helpful, so that your words will be an encouragement to those who hear them.
Scriptural reference 3: James 1:19
says “Let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, and slow to anger:”
