Difficulty: Intermediate | Prerequisites: Person Perception notes
When we explain other people's behaviour, we tend to overemphasise personality and underestimate the situation (fundamental attribution error). We also rely on mental shortcuts (heuristics) that are efficient but systematically biased. Knowing these biases by name, with examples, is central to the exam.
Attribution theory
The study of how people explain the causes of behaviour, both their own and others'.
Situational attribution
Explaining behaviour as caused by external circumstances. "I failed the test because people were talking in the room." Used to protect self-esteem and view the self more positively.
Dispositional attribution
Explaining behaviour as caused by internal traits or character. "I aced the test because I am smart."
Correspondence inference theory
We try to infer from someone's behaviour whether it reflects their underlying character. Did your friend yell because he is a jerk, or because he had a bad day?
Fundamental attribution error (FAE)
The tendency to overestimate the role of personal/dispositional causes and underestimate the impact of the situation when explaining other people's behaviour. Think of it as defaulting to "they're just like that" when the situation may be the real driver.
Actor-observer effect
We attribute our own behaviour to the situation ("I know why I did that") but attribute others' behaviour to their disposition ("they did that because of who they are").
Representativeness heuristic
Judging the probability that something belongs to a category based on how similar it is to the stereotype of that category. The more someone looks like an engineer, the more you assume they are one.
Availability heuristic
Estimating the likelihood of an event based on how easily examples come to mind. Plane crashes are memorable, so people overestimate the danger of flying relative to driving.
False consensus effect
Overestimating the extent to which others share your opinions, attitudes, and behaviours. Found for sex, drinking, smoking. Happens partly because we surround ourselves with similar people.
Bias of projection
Projecting our own attitudes, thoughts, and feelings onto people we perceive as similar to us.
Base rate fallacy
Ignoring statistical base rates in favour of vivid individual cases. A dramatic plane crash story outweighs the statistical fact that flying is safer than driving.
Counterfactual thinking
Imagining alternative outcomes that might have occurred but did not. More common after negative outcomes. Classic finding: Olympic bronze medallists feel happier than silver medallists because silver medallists imagine "I almost won gold."
Illusion of control
Believing you have more control over events than you do. "If I pick my own lottery numbers, I'll have a better chance of winning."
Self-monitoring
Adjusting your behaviour to fit the demands of the current situation. High self-monitors are social chameleons.
Hindsight bias
"I knew it all along." After learning an outcome, people believe they would have predicted it.
Regression to the mean
Extreme performances tend to be followed by performances closer to the person's average. A baseball player having an exceptional season will likely perform closer to their average the next year.
We have a natural tendency to look for what causes behaviour. Explanations fall into two categories: situational (external) and dispositional (internal). We tend to make situational attributions for our own behaviour (especially failures) and dispositional attributions for others' behaviour.
Correspondence inference theory asks: does this behaviour reflect who the person really is? Two factors that influence the answer:
Degree of choice: Freely chosen behaviour is more indicative of true character.
Expectedness: Behaviours that violate social norms tell us more about a person than behaviours that conform.
The FAE is the tendency to over-attribute others' behaviour to their disposition. See someone sleeping on the street and your first thought may be "drug addict" rather than "lost their job and their home." The actor-observer effect is the self-serving flip side: we explain our own behaviour with situational factors.
Why does the FAE happen? We are cognitively busy and biases occur automatically. Criticism of the bias literature notes that lab demonstrations may lack ecological validity, and the FAE can sometimes be correct.
Heuristics are simple rules that allow us to make fast decisions by directing limited cognitive resources to what matters most. They are efficient but systematically biased.
Representativeness heuristic: The more someone resembles the stereotype of a group, the more likely we judge them to belong to it, regardless of base rates.
Availability heuristic: We estimate the odds of an event by how easily examples come to mind. A study found that students asked to list 10 course improvements rated the course more favourably than those asked to list 2, because generating 10 was hard, making the course seem fine by comparison.
False consensus effect: We overestimate how common our own attitudes and behaviours are. This occurs because we associate with similar people and project from those similarities to assume agreement on other dimensions.
Base rate fallacy: Vivid stories override statistics. A single dramatic plane crash dominates our risk assessment even though the data says driving is far more dangerous.
Counterfactual thinking: Imagining "what if" alternatives to outcomes that already happened. Most common after negative outcomes. The Olympic medal study (bronze happier than silver) is a classic demonstration.
Illusion of control: Believing you influence random outcomes. Buying your own lottery ticket feels like it gives you better odds, but it does not.
Self-monitoring: Adjusting behaviour to match the demands of the current situation. High self-monitors are more attuned to social cues.
Hindsight bias: Once you know the outcome, you feel you "knew it all along." This distorts how we evaluate decisions.
Regression to the mean: Extreme performance is followed by performance closer to the average. This is a statistical phenomenon, not a motivational one.
Students think the FAE means dispositional attributions are always wrong. They are not. Sometimes behaviour really does reflect character. The FAE is a tendency to over-rely on dispositional explanations, not a rule that they are always incorrect.
Students confuse the availability heuristic with the representativeness heuristic. Availability is about how easily examples come to mind (ease of recall). Representativeness is about how closely something matches a stereotype (similarity to a prototype).
Students assume counterfactual thinking only happens after personal failures. It can follow any negative outcome, including vicarious ones (watching your team lose, seeing someone else miss a goal).
⚠️ The FAE is one of the most tested concepts in social psychology. Know it, the actor-observer effect, and be able to give examples of each.
⚠️ Be able to distinguish representativeness from availability with examples.
⚠️ The false consensus effect is commonly tested. Know why it happens (we associate with similar others, then project).
⚠️ Counterfactual thinking and the Olympic medal study (bronze vs. silver) are classic exam questions.
⚠️ Know the "book" terms: illusion of control, hindsight bias, regression to the mean, self-monitoring.
Fill in the blank: The ______ is the tendency to overestimate dispositional causes when explaining others' behaviour.
Fundamental attribution error.
True or False: The availability heuristic judges probability by how closely something matches a stereotype.
False. That is the representativeness heuristic. The availability heuristic judges probability by ease of recall.
Fill in the blank: Olympic ______ medallists tend to feel happier than ______ medallists because of counterfactual thinking.
Bronze; silver.
True or False: Hindsight bias occurs before an event, when you predict you will remember it correctly.
False. Hindsight bias occurs after learning the outcome, when you believe you would have predicted it.
Q: Your flatmate leaves dirty dishes in the sink. You think, "He's just lazy." What bias is this, and what alternative explanation might you be missing?
A: This is the fundamental attribution error. You are making a dispositional attribution (laziness) without considering situational factors (he may be exhausted from a double shift, or unwell).
Q: Explain the availability heuristic using the plane vs. car example.
A: Plane crashes are dramatic and heavily covered by media, making them easy to recall. Cars kill far more people, but those deaths are less vivid. The availability heuristic leads people to overestimate the danger of flying because examples of plane crashes come to mind more readily.
Q: Why do silver medallists often feel worse than bronze medallists?
A: Counterfactual thinking. Silver medallists compare upward ("I almost won gold"), generating regret. Bronze medallists compare downward ("I almost missed the podium entirely"), generating relief.
Q: What is regression to the mean, and why is it important?
A: Regression to the mean is the statistical tendency for extreme performances to be followed by performances closer to the average. It matters because people often mistake it for a real decline or improvement when it is simply statistical noise.
Attribution theory connects to the Self (we make self-serving attributions to protect self-esteem) and to Prejudice (stereotypes function as a lens for dispositional attributions about out-group members). Heuristics connect to Emotion (mood can influence which heuristic we rely on).
Attribution theory, situational attribution, dispositional attribution, internal attribution, external attribution, correspondence inference theory, Jones and Davis, fundamental attribution error, FAE, actor-observer effect, self-serving bias, heuristics, mental shortcuts, representativeness heuristic, availability heuristic, false consensus effect, bias of projection, base rate fallacy, base rate neglect, counterfactual thinking, Olympic medal study, illusion of control, self-monitoring, Snyder, hindsight bias, knew-it-all-along effect, regression to the mean, cognitive bias, dual process, automatic processing