![]() ![]() Thus, the actor-observer asymmetry does not exist in one theoretical formulation (traditional attribution theory) but does exist in the new alternative theoretical formulation. Against the background of a different theory of explanation, Malle tested an alternative set of three actor-observer asymmetries and found consistent support for all of them. Malle interpreted this result not so much as proof that actors and observers explained behavior exactly the same way but as evidence that the original hypothesis was fundamentally flawed in the way it framed people’s explanations of behavior-namely, as attributions to either stable dispositions or to the situation. However, a meta-analysis of research from 1971 to 2004 yielded a stunning finding: there was no actor-observer asymmetry of the sort proposed. Supported by initial evidence, the hypothesis was long held as firmly established, describing a robust and pervasive phenomenon of social cognition. But, they see other people’s actions as solely a product of their overall personality, and they do not afford them the chance to explain their behavior as exclusively a result of a situational effect. People are more likely to see their own behavior as affected by the situation they are in, or the sequence of occurrences that have happened to them throughout their day. ![]() ![]() Yet when a person is attributing the behavior of another person, thus acting as the observer they are more likely to attribute this behavior to the person’s overall disposition than as a result of situational factors. When a person judges their own behavior, and they are the actor, they are more likely to attribute their actions to the particular situation than to a generalization about their personality. Actor-observer asymmetry (also actor-observer bias) explains the errors that one makes when forming attributions about behavior. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |