The tendency to attribute external causes to our own behavior and internal causes to others’ behavior is known as actor-observer bias. In simpler terms, individuals tend to explain their own behavior differently compared to how an external observer would explain the same behavior.
In simpler terms, individuals tend to explain their own behavior differently compared to how an external observer would explain the same behavior.
For instance, imagine you’re walking down the street and accidentally trip and fall. Your immediate reaction might be to blame the incident to the slippery pavement, an external cause. However, if you witness a stranger experiencing a similar mishap, you might be inclined to blame it to an internal cause like clumsiness or inattentiveness.
Since actor-observer bias can impact how we perceive and interact with others, it has the potential to lead to inaccurate assumptions and misunderstandings.
One type of cognitive bias, or an error in thinking, is actor-observer bias (also known as actor-observer asymmetry). To be more precise, it’s a form of attribution bias, which happens when we make assumptions and judgements about the reasons behind people’s actions.
The actor-observer bias states that we are more prone to blame external factors for our behavior than personality. On the other hand, we are more inclined to place the blame on someone’s character when we are acting as observers and explaining their behaviors. Fundamental attribution error refers to this mistaken assumption made by the observer.
Actor-observer bias causes us to deflect responsibility when we are the actor but give blame to personality traits when we are the observer.
Example of Actor-observer bias
During a meeting with a faculty advisor, a struggling student arrives late. When questioned about their poor academic performance, the student attributes it to external factors such as a demanding course load, family issues, and stress. The advisor, understandingly nodding, privately forms a different opinion, convinced that the student is simply lazy and indifferent because of their tardiness.
In this scenario, the advisor, acting as an observer, tends to attribute the student’s academic struggles to inherent personality traits, downplaying the impact of external circumstances. On the other hand, the student, reflecting as an actor on their own situation, attributes their academic challenges to external forces, overlooking their own responsibility.
In reality, it’s likely that both internal and external factors contribute to the student’s academic performance.
The term “attribution” in psychology describes our understanding and explanation of causes of behavior.
On an average day, we make multiple attributions about our own and other people’s behavior. It is biassed because we are typically ignorant of this process.
Types of attribution
There are two primary types of attribution:
- According to external (or situational) attribution, people’s behaviors are influenced by their environment or by factors beyond their control.
- Interpreting someone’s behavior in terms of their personality or disposition is known as internal (or dispositional) attribution.
The attributions we make are directly influenced by whether we identify as the actor or the observer, due to actor-observer bias.
Causes of Actor-observer Bias
There are several reasons why the actor-observer bias occurs, including the complexity of human behavior.
However, there are three specific reasons that are deeply connected with one another:
- Attentional differences
- Differences in available information
- Experiment With Student Essays
1. Attentional differences
We actors find it difficult to see our behavior in the roles we play. In other words, we can’t see how we behave. Actors tend to focus their attention outward because of this. As a result, we are more inclined to look for the signs in our surroundings or circumstances that influence our behaviour.
In contrast, the environment appears stable to the observer and functions only as a background or setting. As observers, we concentrate on the actor’s behavior and essentially take them at face value, implying that they are fixed personality traits.
2. Differences in available information
As actors, we have access to a lot more information when we try to explain our own behavior. We are aware of our emotional state, our intentions, and how we behaved in the past. When we treat someone rudely, we tend to believe that this is the exception rather than the rule.
For example, we may recall only a few situations in which we insulted someone, and we may assume that in the majority of these instances, we were provoked. We associate our behavior to the situation rather than to who we are since we are aware that we don’t always act in that manner.
From the perspective of the observer, the opposite is true. Our only source of information is what we can observe. We tend to believe that the behavior is the result of an internal characteristic because of this dearth of knowledge. Observers tend to blame rudeness to a person’s personality rather than assuming that they were having an awful day.
3. Motivational differences
Information gathering and processing are used for more than only structuring and understanding our reality. This process is also impacted by our motives. One example of such a motive is a need to improve or protect one’s self-esteem.
The actor-observer bias is more common in negative situations when the behavior is blameworthy. Since no one likes to appear bad, actors are more prone to place the blame elsewhere rather than take responsibility in order to protect their self-esteem.
Conversely, observers are not part of the situation; they are outsiders. Their self-esteem is not at stake because their main motive is to fully understand what is happening.
As a result, we judge others’ behaviour by exaggerating the importance of essential character traits while underestimating the importance of situation and environment.
There are several signs that interpretations of an event may be influenced by the actor-observe bias.
Actor-Observer Bias Signs
Several indicators suggest the influence of the actor-observer bias on event interpretations.
Among the indicators are:
- Blaming others for events while failing to acknowledge the role you played.
- Being biassed by blaming strangers for their experiences while attributing results to situational factors in the case of friends and family members.
- Neglecting all the positive aspects of a situation while focusing solely on the negatives.
- Ignoring internal causes that influence the outcomes of your experiences.
- When evaluating other people’s behaviour, they fail to take into account situational factors.
- When things don’t go as planned, you tend to blame outside forces.
In other words, when it happens to you, it is beyond your control, yet when it happens to someone else, it is all their fault. This bias appears to be primarily self-serving.
Researchers have discovered that when people are with people they know well, including close friends and relatives, they tend to feel this bias less frequently.
People are more inclined to take into account the outside factors that influence behavior because they are more aware of the needs, motivations and thoughts of those individuals.
Impact of the Actor-Observer Bias
It can be difficult and frequently results in misunderstandings and arguments because of the actor-observer bias. You could hold someone else responsible for an incident during an argument without taking into account other contributing factors.
We also avoid accepting responsibility for our actions as a result of the actor-observer bias. We could assign the blame to someone else rather than owning up to our role. Conflict in relationships may result from this.
People find it more difficult to understand the importance of changing their behaviour in order to avoid repeating the same mistakes due to the actor-observer bias.
Examples of Actor-observer bias
1. Experiment With Student Essays
In the following experiment, Jones and Harris (1967) gave college students the choice of reading essays or listening to speeches that were apparently prepared by other students.
Certain essays and speeches were written with no choice, the researchers informed the students. For instance, regardless of how they felt, students were required to write a “short cogent defense of Castro’s Cuba.”
Researchers discovered that even while the observer students were aware that the other students were forced to choose a side, they still had a tendency to attribute the arguments in the essays to the authors’ feelings.
2. The Judgmental Advisor and The Lazy Student
In their 1971 study, Edward Jones and Richard Nisbett used the example of a student and advisor.
When justifying his poor performance, the student typically mentions particular external obstacles like family issues, a heavy workload, emotional stress, and so forth.
The adviser would place too much emphasis on internal factors, including the student’s laziness or lack of knowledge.
This is an example of the fundamental attribution error in action: when examining the behavior of another person (the student), the observer (the advisor) has a tendency to overestimate the significance of internal factors.
3. Can Politicians Be Held Responsible?
Jones and Nisbett (1971) also provided the autobiographies of former politicians as an example.
The actors view politicians’ past actions in a very different light.
Politicians typically blame inescapable external conditions for their past mistakes, but the public is more likely to believe that the politicians’ own character flaws are to blame.
Tips for Avoiding Actor-Observer Bias:
1. Don’t Blame the Victim
The actor-observer bias often leads to unfairly blaming victims for their misfortune, attributing their actions as the cause of the situation. Instead, resist making quick judgments and recognize that you might not have the complete picture.
Practice empathy and consider other influences that could have contributed to the events.
2. Put your attention on Solving Problems
Instead of fixating on assigning blame, shift your focus toward finding solutions to the situation. By directing your energy towards problem-solving, you may gain a clearer understanding of the various factors involved, leading to more accurate assessments of the circumstances.
3. Practice Gratitude
Spend some time focused on being grateful when something terrible occurs rather than putting blame to other factors. Even if you may have faced a setback, your wellbeing can be benefitted by keeping a more positive and optimistic attitude. It might also assist you in thinking about some of the other internal or external factors that contributed to the situation.
It’s important to note that completely avoiding the actor-observer bias may be challenging, but adopting these strategies can help minimize its impact and promote a more balanced and understanding perspective.
Please read through some of our other articles with examples and explanations if you’d like to learn more.
- Human Resource Management
- Management Information System
- Why is Information Governance Important?
- How Data Analysis Is Changing Information Governance?
- The St. Gallen Management Model
- System-Oriented Management
- Tools Transforming Knowledge Management
- Levels of Management
- Information Management Software
- Tools for Information Management
- Information Governance vs Records Management
- Management Information System Books
- Greenwashing: A Case Study on DWS
- Greenwashing Examples
- Actor-Observer Bias
- Cut Off Scores
- Belief Bias
- Conflict of Interest
- Chaos Theory in Systems Thinking
- ENTJs Study Effectively
- Consequences of Peer Pressure
- Strategic marketing planning
- Marketing Environment
- Consumer buying decision process
- Factors Influencing Consumer Behavior
- Product Positioning
- Target Market Strategies
- Market Segmentation
- STP Process
- Data Analysis Process
- Consumer Adoption Process
- Product Life Cycle
- Product Attributes
- Price Discrimination
- Company Vs. Product-Based Company
- Product Classification
- Penetration Pricing and Price Skimming
- Case Study of Nestle
- Fast-Moving Consumer Goods
- Motorola’s Customer-Defined, ‘Six-Sigma Quality
- PEST And a SWOT Analysis
- Web Design Company Vs. a Web Designer
- Internal and External SWOT Analysis
- Strategic Opportunism
- Table of Contents
- Dissertation Topic
- Thesis Statement
- Research Proposal
- Research Questions
- Research Problem
- Research Gap
- Types of Research Gaps
- Operationalization of Variables
- Literature Review
- Research Hypothesis
- Measurement of Scale
- Sampling Techniques
- Research Methods
- Quantitative Research
- Qualitative Research
- Case Study Research
- Survey Research
- Conclusive Research
- Descriptive Research
- Cross-Sectional Research
- Theoretical Framework
- Conceptual Framework
- Grounded Theory
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- Mixed Method
- Correlational Research
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Stratified Sampling
- Ghost Authorship
- Secondary Data Collection
- Primary Data Collection
- PLS-SEM model
- Principal Components Analysis
- Multivariate Analysis
- Friedman Test
- Chi-Square Test (Χ²)
- Effect Size
- Critical Values in Statistics
- Statistical Analysis
- Calculate the Sample Size for Randomized Controlled Trials
- Covariate in Statistics
- Avoid Common Mistakes in Statistics
- Standard Deviation
- Derivatives & Formulas
- Build a PLS-SEM model using AMOS
- Principal Components Analysis using SPSS
- Statistical Tools
- Type I vs Type II error
- Descriptive and Inferential Statistics
- Microsoft Excel and SPSS
- One-tailed and Two-tailed Test
- Parametric and Non-Parametric Test