A Naturalistic Test of Two Fundamental Propositions: Correspondence Bias and the Actor‐Observer Hypothesis

Abstract

This research examines factors which influence the layexplainer in everyday life. Correspondence bias (cf. Gilbert & Joties, 1986) and Jones and Nisbett's (1971) actor-observer hypothesis are reviewed. Descriptions and explanations of behavior were obtained in everyday life via experience sampling. Traits as explanations were accessed minimally. The only significant difference between actor and observer was that actors used the person explanation more than observers did. Whether actor or observer, situational explanations were preferred most, then person, and finally purpose. Actions were explained significantly more by purpose and somewhat less by situation than were emotions. Reasons for such findings are discussed, along with the importance of description (e.g., an action-emotion descriptive con-The research reported herein is based partly on a doctoral dissertation submitted to the Department of Behavioral Sciences. Committee on Human Development.

An Examination of the Actor‐Observer Effect in Young Drivers' Attributions for Their Own and Their Friends' Risky Driving

“…Although there was evidence that overall they considered some reasons relatively situational and some relatively dispositional, there was considerable variability in their judgments. The participants in this verification procedure were perhaps confronted with the same realization as psychologists: It is actually inaccurate to suggest that either people or situations determine behavior, once you try to analyze this question too carefully (this has been subject to some debate; e.g., Lewis, 1995;White, 1991).…”

“…On the other hand, studies that have been conducted in the field or that have used more natural targets have tended to involve rather ordinary behaviors or tasks, such as choice of girlfriend or college major (Nisbett et al, 1973) or characteristics of oneself, compared to fellow members of a college fraternity (Monson et al, 1980). One recent study that required participants to make attributions for the behavior they were engaged in and observing when randomly beeped throughout a 3-day period found no evidence for an actor-observer effect, and very little use of trait explanations by either actors or observers (Lewis, 1995). This may well be, however and as acknowledged by Lewis, because the behaviors were all rather expected and therefore not particularly salient against the background in which they were observed.…”

The actor-observer effect revisited: Effects of individual differences and repeated social interactions on actor and observer attributions.

“…Similarly, Funder and Van Ness (1983) commented that "the actor-observer difference may be less general than was once thought" (pp. 31-32) and, more recently, Lewis (1995) argued that the actor-observer effect is "not as ubiquitous as previously thought" (p. 102). Watson (1982) concluded his comprehensive review of the actor-observer literature with a call to action: Future research should "clarify the factors that enhance, eliminate, or reverse" (p. 698) the basic effect.…”

“…Thus, in naturalistic settings, or experimental settings that more closely approximate such settings, the actor-observer effect may not always occur (Lewis, 1995;Monson, Tanke, & Lund, 1980). Together these various qualifications raise issues about the generalizability and robustness of the actor-observer effect.…”

The Fundamental Tools, and Possibly Universals, of Human Social Cognition

“…In interactions with familiar others, by contrast, attribute inferences will be rare whereas mental state inferences are still continuously needed. To illustrate, in folk explanations of behavior, mental states are cited about 65% of the time, whereas stable person attributes are cited no more than 5% of the time ( Malle, 2004 ;Malle et al, 2007 ; see also Lewis, 1995 ).…”