The Actor-Observer Effect as a Function of Performance Outcome and Nationality of Other

Abstract

others, participants rated the influence of internal and external causal factors on both successful and unsuccessful examination outcomes. Predictions drawn from the integration of the actorobserver effect (Jones & Nisbett, 1971) and ego-serving bias theory (Miller & Ross, 1975) were tested. Results provided support for an extended overall actor-observer effect in that as the nationality of other became more dissimilar, individuals ascribed increasingly greater internal causation for the behavioral outcomes of others (as compared to self). Additionally, results provided support for the operation of a self-serving, self-other comparison process in that the actor-observer tendency emerged quite differently in successful, as compared to unsuccessful, performance outcome situations.Keywords: actor-observer effect, ego-serving bias, performance outcome, nationality of other.We focused on the question of how the reasons that individuals provide for their own behaviors and the behaviors of others is influenced by performance outcomes and nationality. This question is directly related to fundamental principles of person perception as described by attribution theory (Heider, 1958;Weiner, 1972), as well as to two general attribution principles that describe more specifically the manner in which individuals seek to explain or provide reasons for behavioral outcomes: ego-serving bias (Miller & Ross, 1975) and the actor-observer effect (Jones & Nisbett, 1971). Additionally, in investigating the SOCIAL

Dissecting Dispositionality: Distance Increases Stability of Attribution

“…Similarly, events occurring at a distant (vs. near) location elicited more dispositional attributions (Henderson, Fujita, Trope, & Liberman, 2006). And events happening to another person (vs. oneself), and thus at greater social distance, also increased dispositional attributions—called the actor–observer effect (e.g., Green & McClearn, 2010; Jones & Nisbett, 1972; Nisbett, Caputo, Legant, & Marecek, 1973; Semin & Fiedler, 1989; Storms, 1973; cf. Malle, 2006).…”

The contribution of sensory information asymmetry and bias of attribution to egocentric tendencies in effort comparison tasks

“…Well documented biases that are better described by this asymmetry (e.g., the endowment effect; Kahneman et al, 1991 ) were necessarily excluded by our paradigm. Furthermore, the social aspect of our experiment paired strangers from relatively homogenous demographics, and as such did not explore potential attributional biases produced by perceived differences between oneself and others ( Ashkanasy, 1997 ; Green and McClearn, 2010 ). Moreover, our task was not a joint task towards a common goal that might elicit a stronger self-serving bias, as often considered in the egocentric bias literature ( Ross and Sicoly, 1979 ).…”

Egocentric Bias in Effort Comparison Tasks Is Driven by Sensory Asymmetries, Not Attribution Bias

“…Well documented biases that are better described by this asymmetry (e.g., the endowment effect; Kahneman et al, 1991) were necessarily excluded by our paradigm. Furthermore, the social aspect of our experiment paired strangers from relatively homogenous demographics, and as such did not explore potential attributional biases produced by perceived differences between oneself and others (Ashkanasy, 1997; Green & McClearn, 2010). Therefore, this study makes no comment on the existence or prevalence of self/other biases in general, but rather aims to better characterise the bias inherent in egocentric perception.…”