Attribution Error Is the Tendency

¶ … attribution error is the tendency to over-state or over-emphasize personality characteristics when evaluating an individual's moral responsibility for his or her personal situation. Instinctively, someone might wish to state: 'of course, aren't people different? Don't their personal characteristics affect their behavior and choices?' That is why the instinctive response is 'e' -- that the fundamental attribution error is a failure to consider the impact of personality and individual differences. It would seem that common sense dictates that everyone is 'different' and everyone is an 'individual.' Individual decisions produce different responses, and different responses result in different life outcomes. However, in Western society there is a tendency to over-emphasize, or over-stress personality characteristics to the point where critical aspects of the individual's social context and factual data are lost in evaluating the situation.

To some degree, the fundamental attribution error seems like natural mistake, given the way human beings are forced to behave in daily life. For example, a student arrives late to class and says that he or she was unable to arrive on time because of traffic. The teacher is less apt to believe the student if the individual is chronically late, turns in slapdash assignments, and rarely participates in class. However, even if the student is known to be honest and conscientious, the teacher may still be judgmental, given the fundamental attribution error. The error holds that individual autonomy is responsible for the person's fortunate or unfortunate circumstances. The teacher may be apt to think: 'why didn't the student leave early and allow for extra time, given that traffic is a common occurrence,' conveniently forgetting that he or she never leaves his or her house early, either.

The fundamental attribution error is partially a product of Western culture and its emphasis on individuality. Cliches such as 'God helps those who help themselves' and 'pull yourself up by your bootstraps' and 'self-made man' abound. However, no human being exists in isolation, and even a self-made businessman likely had some help on the way to the top. Perhaps the most extreme examples of the fundamental attribution error is when people automatically assume that the homeless are entirely responsible for their circumstances, even if their past histories are not known by the observer. The prejudices of the fundamental attribution error can be so entrenched, facts are not judged objectively.

Social psychologists have tested the fundamental attribution error: in one experiment, it was discovered that even when subjects knew that the authors of pro and anti-Castro essays had been required to take a particular side, they still judged the individual's real position to be closer aligned to his or her forced stance (Fundamental attribution error, 2010, Changing Minds). The fundamental attribution error has profound implications for public policy. If individuals are assumed to be entirely responsible for their personal circumstances, than government has no responsibility to give them extra aid. The error's assumption is that poverty, a lack of access to education and financial resources, and the stresses of an unsafe environment have little impact upon the individual so long as he or she 'tries harder.'

The fundamental attribution error is clearly seen in the healthcare debate raging in America today. Opponents of healthcare legislation tend to see an individual's inability to find a job that gives healthcare benefits as the fault of the individual, not a society that refuses to mandate that all employers cover their employees. Furthermore, there is a great deal of handwringing about the need for 'personal responsibility' over one's health. First of all, even very health-conscious individuals with insurance get sick -- anyone can get into a car accident and even athletes can have cancer. Although eating well and exercise can forestall some serious illnesses, it is not a replacement for healthcare, nor is being sick necessarily an indication of living a reckless lifestyle. However, it is more comforting to think that we as individuals have control over our health and can prevent illness through personal responsibility. This means we have no responsibility to extend greater healthcare coverage to others who do not have insurance as presumably they have not 'worked hard' enough to deserve such a benefit.

Question 2

Instinctively it might seem as if "the greater the cohesiveness or solidarity of a group, the better its decisions will be." Common sense suggests that cohesiveness produces a greater sense of agreement and solidarity. It is easier to enforce a decision that is made in a unified manner. But the problem with solidarity is the phenomenon known as 'groupthink' or the assumption that if the other members of the group think something is right, than it is correct.

Human beings are social animals, and the need to please others and to receive support is hard-wired into the human psyche. Furthermore, it can be very difficult to assume that others are wrong, even if you believe you are right even on factual matters: one study of a group found that, when shown two obviously different-sized lines, people still tended to agree with planted confederates in the room that said the two lines were the same. The risks of groupthink increase tremendously with more subjective decisions.

Groupthink increases exponentially when individuals are of similar backgrounds, and of a similar culture. It makes it easier to have a sense of insulation from the rest of the world, and to judge others in a quick and uncritical fashion. The group's decisions seem supremely rational because no one with a differing opinion is present to challenge such rationality, and the presence of other like-minded people creates an illusion of invincibility and unanimity (What is groupthink, 2010, PSYSR). However, if the group were exposed to challenges and other opinions, this illusion would be shattered -- and a better, more informed decision might be made.