Explain the Fundamental Attribution Error with reference to research

The Fundamental Attribution Error occurs when a person overestimates the dispositional factors in someone’s behaviour and underestimates the situational factors. For example, if a student performs poorly on a test, a teacher may attribute this bad mark to the student being lazy or unprepared rather than the student being ill the day of the test or having a bad day. The reason behind this error in attribution is often not having enough information to create a balanced decision, thus the individual attributes the behaviour to dispositional factors rather than situational factors. On the other hand, when individuals assess themselves they tend to take into consideration the situation or circumstances. Ross et al., 1977, conducted an experiment with the aim of experimenting whether students would make the fundamental attribution error even if they had the knowledge that the actors were simply playing a role. The sample consisted of 18 pairs of students from an introductory class at Stanford University. The participants were randomly assigned the roles of either questioner or contestant and had to participate in a simulated quiz game. 24 observers watched the quiz while the questioners asked the contestants 10 questions designed by the questioner. The questioner was to give the contestants 30 seconds for each question, and if the contestants did not answer correctly, the questioner gave the correct answer. After the quiz, all participants and observers were asked to rate the "general knowledge" of the contestants and questioners. The results showed that the contestants and observers consistently rated the general knowledge of the questioners in the experimental condition as superior. There was clear demonstration of FAE, as the contestants and observers attributed the questioners' ability to answer the questions to dispositional factors and failed to take into consideration the situational factors that gave the questioners an advantage. On the other hand, the questioners did not rate their own knowledge as being superior to that of the contestants as they took into account their own situation. Some of the limitations of this study is that it lacked ecological validity due to its artificial setting as the game show situation is not one that individuals are faced with in their daily lives. Also, there was sampling bias as it was done with a sample of only university students which may have affected the results as they are used to attributing more intelligence to their professors which they may have related to the questioners as well. This study cannot be generalized to the wider world due to its lack of cross cultural validity as American students cannot accurately represent the errors in attribution globally.