Beliefs concerning the features of constrained behavior: A basis for the fundamental attribution error.

Miller, Arthur G.; Ashton, William A.; Mishal, Mark

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.59.4.635

Cited by 43 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Apparently, this is possible for some individuals because as have pointed out, many subjects do not show the correspondence bias when observing constrained behavior. This suggests that there may be individual difference variables that influ ence the correction process and therefore contribute to the occurrence of the correspondence bias (also see Miller, Ashton, & Mishal, 1990). One such variable may be need for cognition (Cacioppo & Petty, 1982).…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

Need for Cognition and the Correspondence Bias

D’Agostino¹,

Fincher‐Kiefer²

1992

Social Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two studies examined the relationship between need for cognition and the correspondence bias. In Experiment 1, high and low need for cognition subjects read a speech on abortion that the target was constrained to write and then rated the target's true attitude on this issue. A correspondence bias was found only in the ratings of the low need for cognition subjects. Experiment 2 replicated the results of Experiment 1 and also found that cognitive busyness tended to increase the correspondence bias for all subjects. It was concluded that need for cognition moderates the correspondence bias and that high need for cognition subjects are less prone toward this bias because they correct more adequately for situational constraints than do low need for cognition subjects.The correspondence bias may well be the most robust and replicable finding in social psychology (Jones, 1990). This bias refers to the tendency to explain behavior in terms of stable dispositions of the actor even though the behavior may be dictated by situational constraints or pressures. The attitude-attribution paradigm has been used frequently in studies of the correspondence bias. For example, Jones and Harris (1967) asked subjects to evaluate a target's attitude toward Castro after reading either a pro-or con-Castro essay written by the target. The important finding was that subjects attributed to the target an attitude that corresponded to the content of the speech even when the speech was written under no-choice conditions. This outcome has been found using a variety of topics and constraint manipulations (for reviews see Jones, 1979Jones, , 1990.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 97%

Need for Cognition and the Correspondence Bias

D’Agostino¹,

Fincher‐Kiefer²

1992

Social Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…So, when a target argues in favor of abortion, observers infer that the target has a pro-choice attitude. This inference is spontaneously made, even when observers are made clear that the target was assigned a position to defend at random (e.g., Gilbert & Jones, 1986;Miller, Ashton, & Mishal, 1990). Observers still draw a correspondent inference because they believe that true beliefs leak through in public claims, even when these are constrained by the situation (Lord, Scott, Pugh, & Desforges, 1997).…”

Section: A Two-step Theory Of the Mere-agreement Effectmentioning

confidence: 95%

Better think before agreeing twice

Pandelaere¹,

Briers²,

Dewitte³

et al. 2010

International Journal of Research in Marketing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Participants are then asked to estimate the target's true attitude. Correspondence bias is reflected in the fact that participants tend to ascribe attitudes consistent with the position expressed although the position was randomly assigned (e.g., Jones & Harris, 1967;Miller, Ashton, & Mishal, 1990;Snyder & Jones, 1974).…”

Section: Attitude Attribution and Questioner-contestant Paradigmsmentioning

confidence: 99%