This research paper examines differences in dispositional attributions between Western American and Eastern American participants, grounded in the theoretical framework of the fundamental attribution error and correspondent inference theory. Drawing on prior cross-cultural research by Miller (1984), Morris and Peng (1994), and others, the study tested whether Western participants would make more internal attributions than their Eastern counterparts and whether they would score higher on individualism. Thirty-two participants completed dispositional-situational scenario questionnaires and an independence-interdependence scale. Western participants made significantly more dispositional attributions; however, the predicted difference in individualism was not statistically significant. The paper discusses methodological limitations and directions for future cross-cultural attribution research.
The fundamental attribution error describes the tendency for people to make a dispositional attribution when observing the behaviors of others. Previous research has indicated that non-Westerners do not show a strong effect, especially those from more collective cultures such as those from the East (e.g., Asian cultures). These individuals tend to explain behavior based on context or situational factors. This is believed to be due to Eastern cultures' emphasis on collective values and interdependence, and Western cultures' emphasis on independence.
The following study examined differences between 16 Western Americans and 16 Eastern Americans in their tendency to make internal attributions to explain the behavior of characters they read about. The participants were also administered measures of individualism and cultural identity. Western participants made more dispositional explanations than did their Eastern counterparts, but did not display significantly higher individualism. The findings are discussed in the context of previous research.
In a classic study, Watson (1960) gave subjects a three-number sequence — 2, 4, 6 — and asked them to guess the rule used to devise the series. He invited them to test their hunches by generating their own sequences and would tell them whether they were correct or not. The overwhelming majority ended up confidently stating the wrong conclusion based on evidence they generated to confirm their initial impression (most often the conclusion was either ascending even numbers such as 10–12–14, or sequences ascending by twos such as 31–33–35). In fact, the rule was simply any three-number ascending sequence. Further evidence has revealed that individuals — including psychologists, medical doctors, and other professionals — seek to confirm their impressions rather than disconfirm them.
The confirmation bias (Watson, 1960) refers to a cognitive process in which we selectively and unconsciously assign more weight to stimuli, information, or events that seem to confirm our preconceptions or worldview. Most people unconsciously engage in confirmation bias; it is essentially a method of psychological streamlining for processing information. The process tends to be automatic and requires conscious effort to override. Confirmatory biases can occur when people seek and review information in a way that confirms rather than challenges their preconceived notions.
For example, a classic study by Rosenhan (1973) had students posing as mental patients by claiming to have "heard voices" in a psychiatric ward. The staff observed the students and recorded their behaviors as if they were those of psychotic patients, when in fact the students were simply taking notes on their surroundings. While real patients were easily able to tell that the students did not have genuine psychiatric issues such as schizophrenia, the staff — including psychiatrists and nurses — could not. The relatively benign behaviors performed by students who were thought to carry a psychiatric diagnosis were perceived as clinically significant. Thus, the staff sought only to confirm what they already believed. As the vast body of research indicates, confirming what one already believes can lead to rigid interpretive strategies and attributional errors. Attribution theory explains how people make causal inferences when judging the behavior of others.
Jones and Davis (1967) believed that people pay particular attention to behaviors perceived as intentional. Dispositional (internal) attributions provide information from which we can predict a person's future behavior, thereby simplifying our social interactions. Jones and Davis' correspondent inference theory described the conditions under which we make dispositional attributions regarding behavior. The term correspondent inference refers to an occasion when an observer infers that a person's behavior corresponds with their personality or some other internal factor. The term "fundamental attribution error" was later coined by Ross (1977) to describe the tendency for people to make a dispositional attribution when observing the behaviors of others. The fundamental attribution error has since become one of the most researched topics in social psychology.
In a groundbreaking study, Miller (1984) reviewed competing explanations for the fundamental attribution error, particularly in light of the observation that children and non-Westerners did not show a strong effect. These potential explanations consisted of: (1) a cognitive explanation hypothesizing that children and non-Western attributors have not developed the abstract classifying abilities used to summarize behaviors by disposition; (2) an experiential interpretation claiming these groups lacked experiences that make it functional to use dispositional rather than contextual attributions; and (3) a cultural explanation claiming that Western children learn to make these attributions, whereas people raised in non-individualistic, more collective cultures do not. Miller hypothesized that the cultural explanation was the most valid of the three. Comparing both Hindu and Western children and adults on measures of attribution, Miller demonstrated that non-Westerners tended to rely on contextual attributions, while Western children demonstrated an age-graded increase in dispositional attributions. Cognitive and experiential explanations were not supported. Notably, the tendency to make dispositional attributions in Miller (1984) was stronger for deviant behaviors than for prosocial behaviors.
A similar demonstration by Morris and Peng (1994) indicated that causal attributions made by Americans regarding events such as mass murders focused almost exclusively on the presumed mental instability or other negative dispositions of the perpetrators, whereas attributions made by Chinese participants regarding the same events reflected situational, contextual, and even societal factors.
The notion of social responsibility further highlights these cultural differences. Westerners hold a more individualistic ideal — that people are primarily responsible for themselves — compared to more collective-based cultures. In a well-controlled study on moral reasoning, Miller, Bersoff, and Harwood (1990) found that Hindus regard responsiveness to the needs of others as an objective moral obligation to a far greater extent than do Westerners, supporting the view that Westerners hold a narrower conception of social responsibility. The finding that European North Americans tend to privilege personal agency, whereas East Asians tend to privilege group agency, has been supported by others (e.g., Chiu, Morris, Hong, & Menon, 2000). These two groups also differ in the information they consider when making social inferences. East Asians do not weigh less directly relevant information that European North Americans use when making causal attributions (Choi, Dalal, Kim-Prieto, & Park, 2003).
The current study focused on differences in dispositional attributions between a group of Western American students and Eastern Americans. It was hypothesized that Western students would produce a higher level of dispositional attributions to explain the behavior of individuals they read about. Western American students were also hypothesized to display more individualism than their Eastern counterparts.
In all, thirty-two participants completed the study. Sixteen of the participants were raised in Western cultures (e.g., Polish/Polish-Americans, Western European-Americans). This group consisted of nine males and seven females with an age range of 21–30. Sixteen of the participants were from Eastern cultures (e.g., Chinese/Chinese-Americans, Japanese/Japanese-Americans). This group consisted of eight males and eight females with an age range of 20–31. All participants were recruited from a local university or from a local church in the community.
Participants completed questionnaires consisting of questions regarding their demographic background, a cultural identity scale, an independence-interdependence scale, and 15 dispositional-situational scenarios. The cultural identity scale is not analyzed in this paper.
The dispositional-situational scenarios consisted of short statements (e.g., "Kate missed the train.") followed by two choices to explain the behavior. Participants were instructed to pick the best choice. The independence-interdependence scale consisted of 24 statements answered on a seven-point Likert scale.
The researchers distributed the surveys at a university and a church in the community, and collected them the following day. The independent variable for this study was the cultural background of the respondents (Eastern or Western). The dependent variables were the number of dispositional attributions made on the survey and the level of independence participants displayed in their answers. The data were entered into a computer and analyzed using SPSS.
"Statistical comparisons of the two cultural groups"
"Interpretation of findings, limitations, and future directions"
"APA references and descriptive statistics table"
You’re 60% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.