The fundamental attribution error (FAE) was conceptualized in terms of implicit beliefs linking dispositions to features of constrained action. Essays, positionally congruent with their writer's attitude, were judged (by writers and observers) to be stronger, easier to write, and more likely to evoke a correspondent attribution than were incongruent essays. Additional evidence suggested that these judgments reflected a bias directed at confirming expectations generated by the specified attitude. The reverse of this process-inferring an attitude on the basis of an essay featurewas examined using a contrast-effect procedure to induce the perception of identical essays as strong or weak. The resulting FAE was exaggerated in the strong-but completely attenuated in the weak-essay condition. The results clarify the basis for viewing constrained behavior as having diagnostic value.

No abstract