This paper critically examines the fundamental attribution error — the tendency to attribute others' negative behavior to internal character rather than situational forces — in the context of Stanley Milgram's obedience experiment and Philip Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment. The author acknowledges how the concept helps explain public surprise at ordinary people committing harmful acts, but challenges its underlying assumption that most humans are fundamentally decent. Drawing on historical examples of both complicity and heroic resistance — including the Grimké sisters and rescuers in Nazi-occupied Europe — the paper argues that internal characteristics may play a more decisive role in moral behavior than the fundamental attribution error framework suggests.
The fundamental attribution error helps explain not only why people are surprised by the results of Milgram's experiment, but also why people are surprised whenever other seemingly good people do bad things. The fundamental attribution error refers to a person's tendency to blame internal characteristics when evaluating someone else's behavior. Generally, this means that when someone else engages in negative behavior, the observer is likely to attribute that behavior to internal characteristics rather than looking for external factors that could have caused it. Furthermore, this allows people to conclude that those who do bad things are simply bad people — which makes it easy to assume that one would never engage in that same behavior oneself. When one examines an experiment like Milgram's, in which presumably average people engage in behavior that is genuinely horrific, it becomes easier to understand how social pressure contributes to negative behaviors.
However, I am not certain that I agree with the notion that the fundamental attribution error is a fully adequate explanation. It seems that the error depends upon the assumption that most human beings are, at their core, decent. As a result, when these people engage in troubling behavior, they will typically evidence distress at being asked to do so. In Milgram's experiment, many of the participants who administered the shocks appeared to experience considerable distress. They even made attempts to avoid having to continue, suggesting that their interior feelings were in direct conflict with their exterior behavior.
However, other studies challenge this premise — most notably the famous Stanford Prison Experiment, which revealed ordinary people apparently enjoying sadistic behavior, despite there being no reason at the outset to believe that a significant number of the guards would behave that way. This leads me to question the underlying assumption of the fundamental attribution error, which means I cannot consider it a fully satisfying explanation. At best, I think it may be only a partial account of human behavior.
"Grimké sisters and Nazi rescuers as counterexamples"
"Reflects on individual vs. group moral responsibility"
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.