The actor-observer bias is a kind of attribution bias. It is a concept of social psychology that refers to the tendency to attribute one’s own behaviors to external causes (?Was I wrong because the problem was so difficult?) And, at the same time, it attributes the behaviors of others to internal factors or causes ( ?Anne was wrong because she’s not smart?).
Actor-observer bias plays a fundamental role in the way we perceive and interact with others; in essence, people tend to perform different tasks, depending on whether they are actors or observers of a situation.
- “Actors tend to attribute the causes of their behavior to the stimuli inherent in the situation.
- While observers tend to attribute behavior to the actor’s stable provisions.
- Jones and Nisbett?.
When a person judges their own behavior and is the actor, is it more likely to attribute their actions and results, especially if they are negative?situational circumstances (e. g. bad weather) or transient characteristics, such as fatigue, than internal and relatively stable variables, such as personality.
However, when an observer explains the behavior of another person (i. e. the actor), he or she is more likely to attribute his behavior to the general disposition of the actors, rather than to the factors of the specific situation.
The actor-observer bias tends to be more pronounced in situations where the results are negative: one way or another, by blaming the situation or circumstances for what happened, we protect our concept from ourselves.
However, when something negative happens to another person, others often blame them for their choices, behaviors, and personal actions, without external circumstances.
In this sense, the researchers found that people do not fall so much into actor-observer prejudice with people they know well, as close friends and family, but why does this happen?
Apparently, as we have more information about the needs, motivations, and thoughts of these loved ones, we are more likely to consider the external forces that affect their behavior.
One of the possible reasons for the actor-observer bias is that when people are the actors in a situation, they are more aware of their situation.
However, on many occasions, when we do a mission in which the actor is another, we do not know much about these circumstances, what we have is the memory of a person associated with stable characteristics.
Actor-observer bias is often confused with the fundamental error of attribution; however, although the two are types of attribution biases, they are different from each other.
The actor-observer bias and fundamental attribution error are basically two sides of the same coin. Both terms refer to the same aspect of attribute bias, but do not mean the same thing.
Unlike actor-observer bias, the fundamental error of attribution ignores our behavior. It is often limited to the internal causes of other people’s behavior.
Our tendency to explain someone else’s behavior based on internal factors, such as personality or disposition, is a fundamental attribution error.
Therefore, the fundamental error of attribution focuses only on the behaviour of others and is strictly attributed to the behaviour of others.
We can say that while the fundamental error of attribution is a bias of attribution that analyzes our tendency to explain someone’s behavior based on their internal provisions, the actor-observer bias compares the way we make assignments when we are in a place (actors or observers).
Actor-observer bias can be problematic, as it can lead to misunderstandings and discussions; in fact, having two different views, that of the observer and that of the actor, two people may disagree with the judgment on a given situation.
In fact, it seems logical to think that there can be no agreement when both parties attribute individual behaviors to external situations (external attribution) and the situation of the other party to its characteristics (internal attribution).
Taking a step back and identifying the circumstances in which Ana did not solve the problem, or understanding why joao lied, can avoid conflict, as well as free us from error and give us an idea. fairer.
If we do this to ourselves, why not try to do it with others?