In social psychology, the fundamental attribution error (also known as correspondence bias or attribution effect) describes the tendency to over-value dispositional or personality-based explanations for the observed behaviors of others while under-valuing situational explanations for those behaviors. The fundamental attribution error is most visible when people explain the behavior of others. It does not explain interpretations of one's own behavior—where situational factors are often taken into consideration. This discrepancy is called the actor–observer bias.
As
a simple example, if Alice saw Bob trip over a rock and fall, Alice might
consider Bob to be clumsy or careless (dispositional). If Alice later tripped
over the same rock herself, she would be more likely to blame the placement of
the rock (situational).
The
term was coined by Lee Ross[1] some years after a now-classic experiment by
Edward E. Jones and Victor Harris (1967).[2] Ross argued in a popular paper
that the fundamental attribution error forms the conceptual bedrock for the
field of social psychology. (Wikipedia)
This brings to mind Jesus’s warning regarding
judging others:
New
International Version (NIV)
Matthew
7: 1-5
“Do
not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will
be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
“Why
do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention
to the plank in your own eye? How can
you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the
time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of
your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your
brother’s eye.
The first point Jesus makes is that personality-based
judgments frequently results in an almost reflexive countercharge—you accuse me
of being clumsy or careless, you are
the one who is clumsy or careless. The
person who just stumbled over a rock feels the injustice of the accuser overlooking
any situational causes (the rock was misplaced in the first place) and so
responds with a personality-based judgment of their own. And, indeed, when one jumps to blaming character
flaws in total disregard of situational causes one is being negligent in accessing
the facts. While carelessness is certainly
a possible cause, it tells more about the observer than the observed if one
jumps willy-nilly to judgmental responses rather than situational explanations. In fact, if one loved others as they loved
themselves, there would be a tendency to withhold personality-based judgments
in favor of situational assessments.
What is “the plank…in your own eye” but a blind inclination
to reflexively put others down—to seek to feel superior over your brother? Hence the hypocrisy—you are not really
interested in your brother at all (as you claim to be) but instead wish only to
enhance your own reputation for rectitude.
Jesus flat-out judges people with this selfish tendency—a tendency of one-upmanship
ingrained in the human heart and something to be overcome.
