Why didn’t I clean the litter box?
I didn’t clean the litter box, because I had to rush to school… I ran out of time… I misplaced the scooper…
He, on the other hand, didn’t clean the litter box, because he is lazy… or irresponsible… or unorganized…
Actor/observer difference (Jones & Nisbett, 1972) is the tendency to explain self behavior as a result of situation or circumstances (external attribution), while perceiving others’ behavior as a result of character or disposition (internal attribution).
The tendency comes from a cognitive bias, fundamental attribution error, (Ross, 1977) which suggests humans prefer to underestimate complex external factors—time, energy, or resources—as causes for others’ behavior.
The bias may arise from a culture that values a particular narrative. We are making others far more culpable for outcomes than they actually merit.
This has even permeated into education. We should all know better.
Yet, we’ve made some overly simplistic generalizations and we’re not asking questions. For example, we perceive there is a link between the quality of an individual teacher (internal factors) and test scores, when the resources and support a teacher has access to (external factors) more accurately impacts student performance.
I’m guilty of this. Eighth grade language arts teacher contributes to a 13 percent increase in students meeting state reading standards at a Title 1 middle school.
Who the heck is he? Gary Cooper in High Noon? This teacher didn’t face the Miller gang on his own!
He was part of a team armed with a good reading program… the best resources… support from parents and administrators…
Because we are all amateur psychologists seeking to understand behavior, the thing to do is question our initial explanations.
Why did we explain the behavior or event in that way?
Rebecca on 17 May 2008 at 8:04 am #
How we study history can be connected to how we tend to explain others’ behavior.
The Great Man theory explains history from the point of view of highly influential people who were charismatic or intellectual heroes (internal attribution).
Social history, on the other hand, proposes study based on developing social trends or norms (external attribution). The point of view most reliably comes from the grassroots—everyday people and how they contributed to history.
Our bias makes influential people responsible for most of the history that is recorded. Do they actually want that much responsibility?
Here’s some great info from the American Social History Project: http://www.ashp.cuny.edu/