Definition

The tendency to attribute someone else’s behavior to their personality or nature, and conversely, when considering your behavior, attributing those actions to environmental factors and circumstances beyond one’s control.

Regardless of external forces, people think that actions mirror an individual’s personality.

Attribution, in this case, has two definitions, situational and dispositional:

• Dispositional attribution is where a person’s actions are an innate aspect of their personality.
• Situational attribution is where a person’s actions are driven by others, their environment, and unique circumstances.

Also known as the over-attribution effect or correspondence bias, the overarching theme is that folks tend to be more lenient with their actions than others, holding individuals fully accountable for their behaviors without considering other factors.

Why Use It

While personality does play a role in actions, people often incorrectly ascribe more importance to it. They tend to think an individual’s personality influences their behaviors more than environmental forces. In reality, we don’t weigh external factors enough compared to the quality of someone’s character.

For example, a supervisor becomes frustrated with an “underperforming employee” who does not complete their work on time even though they have previously excused themselves for similar behavior. They are employing the fundamental attribution error.

People analyze others’ interactions and motivations frequently and make decisions on those beliefs. The cost of misjudging others can be high. It damages relationships and can make future interactions difficult.

When to Use It

Human brains are wired to take cognitive shortcuts and expend the least energy possible to find a resolution. While useful, it makes us vulnerable to biases. The fundamental attribution error is a result of this flaw.

Although we are aware of ourselves when we make a decision, that is not the case for others, so we overgeneralize and make assumptions about others’ personalities based on their actions — even though they usually do not correlate to each other.

The tendency affects people in multiple ways:

• You might infer someone’s character by focusing on small details, leading to adverse outcomes. For example, a doctor gives you a diagnosis. They show up on time, dress the part, are knowledgeable and friendly. Will they solve your problem? Based on the meeting, it seems they might, but their demeanor does not translate to the operating room.
• You are less likely to consider external factors when you are in a good mood than in a bad mood, where you will pay more attention and closely analyze a situation.
• When other issues cloud your capacity to process information, you may overlook situational attribution in favor of a more straightforward solution due to reduced cognitive resources.
• If a behavior points directly to a personality trait, you might ignore the situation entirely.

Actions are the product of personality and circumstances. Acknowledging that reality and finding ways to mitigate that shortcoming is crucial.

How to Use It

People judge other individuals more severely than they do themselves, often forgiving and rationalizing one’s behavior when taking similar actions.

Unfairly assuming the worst and blaming dispositional factors can affect the moment and future interactions with that individual who now wears that label on their person rather than on the circumstance.

Examples include:

• When someone is late to a meeting, you may judge them negatively for it without knowing why they are tardy. The individual might have a reasonable excuse for why they were not punctual, and it’s not a reflection on their personality.
• In another scenario, someone speeds past your car on the highway, narrowly missing you. Angry and scared, you think the other driver a reckless lunatic, but perhaps they’re rushing to an emergency. The action is not characteristic of that individual.

In organizations, this tendency exacerbates misunderstandings, can harm relationships, interdepartmental collaboration, and ultimately lead to firings and resignations as the culture becomes unhealthy.

More importantly, humans are highly susceptible to this issue when judging immoral behavior, such as dealing drugs, and it affects systemic issues from changing. The hurdle can be tough to surmount as people judge individuals on their personality as the most critical factor in why they took illegal actions.

What can you do to surmount this tendency?

• Be conscious when analyzing somebody else’s actions that a cognitive bias exists. One is less likely to fall victim to the tendency by proactively admitting this.
  Think specifically about what action that person has taken. Framing the facts is an essential step in analyzing any behavior.
• Recognize there is value to dispositional attribution and personality plays a part in someone’s behavior.
• Be especially mindful of situational attribution and how environmental factors contribute to action. Reverse the roles, and attempt to see yourself in their shoes.

Awareness of oneself and empathy for another’s circumstances are critical when examining a scenario.

How to Misuse It

The concept is sometimes confused with a similar phenomenon called correspondence bias. Where fundamental attribution error misjudges the influence of external factors, correspondence bias seeks to explain folk’s inclination to infer something about an individual’s personality based on their actions.

Next Step

The concept is rooted in the human psyche and is not easily overcome, but it does not mean it’s impossible. It takes conscious thought and consideration to ensure you see a situation. 

Think about what external factors motivated someone’s actions. Develop your emotional intelligence, including empathy, self-awareness, and self-regulation. 

Where it Came From

Kurt Lewin, a leading psychologist, wrote about situational attribution in the 1930s. In 1967, Edward Jones and Victor Harris conducted a study to assess pro- and anti-Castro sentiment where they gauged subjects after reading an essay. When told the essay’s author had been instructed to write the pro- or anti- Castro arguments, subjects continued to believe the author was convicted of the views they supported. Lee Ross coined the term in 1977 and postulated that fundamental attribution error is part of social psychology’s foundation.