Attribution is defined as how people interpret and explain casual relationships in the

social world. Humans need to understand why things happen and have many different ways
of attributing causes to events. They either attribute an event to situational factors (to
external factors), or dispositional factors (internal factors). However, there are several errors
people make when attributing causes to events.

One error in attribution is the Fundamental Attribution Error (FAE). This occurs when
people overestimate the role of dispositional factors and underestimate the one of
situational factors when trying to explain other peoples behaviour. Fiske (2004) argued that
people rely too much on dispositional factors when explaining behaviour and they
sometimes dont even consider the power of the situation in which the behaviour took
place. Explanations of behaviour based entirely on personality are incomplete and
inaccurate but the assumption that peoples behaviour is caused by their personality makes
life more predictable and gives the impression that humans are easy to deal with.

Also, culture seems to be a determinant in attribution. In collectivist cultures, the

emphasis is on the primary social relationships of an individual, while in individualistic
societies the emphasis is on the individual as the primary cause of action leads to
dispositional attribution. The individual is seen as the main cause of success and failure. In
western societies, there is an ideology that people get what they deserve (Gilbert 1995).

This theory has enhanced the understanding of common errors in attribution of

events and it has been proved to be very robust, since it has been supported by many
studies. However, the theory is culturally biased and it focuses too much on individualistic
societies and it lacks generalisability and ecological validity, since most research on it has
been conducted in laboratories and with students as participants.

One study that supports the FAE is the Ross, Amabile and Steinmetz (1977). The aim
was to investigate whether knowledge of allocated roles in a quiz show would affect
participants judgement of peoples intelligence. Eighteen pairs of students took part in a
simulated quiz game, where they were randomly assigned to the roles of either the host or
contestant. In the experimental condition, the role of the contestant or host was randomly
allocated to one person in each pair. Twenty-four observers watched the quiz. The hosts
were asked to think of ten questions based on their knowledge and the contestants had to
answer. The contestants had 30 seconds to respond to the question and if they didnt
respond, the host gave away the answer. After the quiz, all participants and the observers
were asked to rate the general knowledge of the contestants and hosts. The results showed
that both the contestants and the observers rated the general knowledge of the hosts
higher. There was a clear demonstration of the FAE, since the contestants and the observers
attributed the hosts ability to answer the questions to dispositional factors and they
completely neglected the situational factors. The hosts didnt rate their own knowledge as
superior. The set-up of the experiment was well constructed and it gave the opportunity to
demonstrate attributional biases, since it was known by all participants that the hosts had
made up their own questions. However, the study used students as participants which
reduces generalisability and, since it was a lab experiment, it lacks ecological validity.
 Another error in attribution is the Self-serving Bias (SSB). The SSB refers to peoples
tendency to evaluate themselves positively by taking all credit for their success (that is,
entirely attributing their success to dispositional factors) and entirely attribute their failures
to situational factors. The SSB could be a way to enhance self-esteem. People tend to see
themselves as responsible for their successes and not their failures because they want to see
themselves this way. Another explanation is that when people generally expect to succeed
and correlate success with their own effort and exaggerate the amount of control they have
(Miller and Ross, 1975).

Lau and Russel (1980) found that American football coaches and players were more
likely to attribute a victory to dispositional factors, such as talent and hard work, and a loss
to situational factors, such as bad weather or injuries. Also, Posey and Smith (2003)
performed a SSB experiment on children. They were asked to solve some math problems
either with a friend or a non-friend. Although the kids had to solve the math problems alone,
the total score of the pair was noted. After the test the children were asked who did better
and the results showed that children who worked with friends and failed were less likely to
show SSB and more likely to give their friends credit when succeeded. Children who worked
with a non-friend were more likely to show SSB.

Some argue that SSB can be primarily found in individualistic societies, but others
believe that it can be found in collectivist societies as well. Kashima and Triandis (1986)
showed slides from unfamiliar countries to American and Japanese students and asked them
to remember details. When they were asked to explain their performance, the Americans
demonstrated SSB, while the Japanese tended to explain their failure with lack of ability,
which is called Modesty Bias. Bond, Leung and Wan (1982) argued that the Modesty Bias is a
product of a cultural norm in collectivist societies to maintain harmonious personal
relationships.

The SSB theory can explain why some people attribute their failures to the
circumstances, but it is culturally biased. It cannot explain why some cultures emphasise on
Modesty Bias.

To conclude, people tend to make errors when attributing causes to events and
these errors could be linked to cultural factors.