Background and Initial Formulation
The background of the actor-observer asymmetry was established in the 1960s, with social psychology's increasing interest in theEarly Evidence
Soon after the publication of the actor–observer hypothesis, numerous research studies tested its validity, most notably the first such test in 1973 by Nisbett et al. The authors found initial evidence for the hypothesis, and so did Storms,who also examined one possible explanation of the hypothesis: actors explain their behaviors because they attend to the situation (not to their own behaviors) whereas observers attend to the actor's behavior (not to the situation). Based largely on this initial supporting evidence, the confidence in the hypothesis became uniformly high. In the Nisbett et al. (1973) study, actor-observer asymmetry was tested by having participants select between two traits (such as energetic and relaxed), choosing which trait best matched the personality of the target, or if the trait that best matched them depended on the situation. They had participants chose between traits many times to see if participants mainly chose a specific trait or said it depended on the situation. Participants repeated the task saying what trait best matched for different people: their best friend, father, a famous news anchor, and themselves. The results showed that participants more frequently stated that the trait depended on the situation for themselves whereas for others' they often chose one trait that best described them. This provided evidence for actor-observer asymmetry because participants viewed other's personality traits as stable whereas their own as dependent on the situation. Functional neuroimaging studies have also demonstrated differential activation of brain regions when making self-focused vs. other-focused judgments. The medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC), left temporoparietal junction (TPJ), and posterior cingulate were involved in both self-related and other-related judgments. However, self-related judgments more often activated the ventral mPFC (vmPFC), left ventrolateral PFC, and left insula. In contrast, other-related judgments more frequently activated the dorsal mPFC (dmPFC), bilateral TPJ, and cuneus. These findings provide neurological depth to support the actor-observer asymmetry, with fundamentally different cognitive and neural processes involved in different types of attribution. Such work highlights how differential attribution is not only a cognitive bias but a biological one, too.Recent Evidence and Refutation
Over 100 studies have been published since 1971 in which the hypothesis was put to further tests (often in the context of testing another hypothesis about causal attributions). Bertram Malle examined this entire literature in aCross-Cultural Perspective
A significant body of literature exists to support the idea that there are cross-cultural differences in the attribution process. When considering the fundamental attribution error, it has been extended to be known as the "ultimate attribution error" instead, for initially in its discovery it was assumed to be a universal, or a ''fundamental,'' phenomenon. It has since been demonstrated that Western cultures are more susceptible to making the fundamental attribution error in comparison to Eastern cultures. Today, the ultimate attribution error is understood to occur when members of an in-group attribute negative behaviours of an out-group to their disposition, while attributing positive behaviours to situational factors. The opposite is true for when members of their own in-group engage in positive or negative behaviours. In general, studies have shown that collectivist cultures lean towards making situational attributions for the behaviour of others, whereas individualistic cultures lean towards making dispositional attributions. More specifically, in an 1985 study by Cha & Nam, it was found that Korean individuals used more situationally-relevant information than Americans when making causal attributions. Notably, Choi & Nisbett conducted an experiment where participants witnessed an individual writing an essay maintaining a certain view, and both Americans and Koreans believed that the essay reflected the true views of the writer. However, when put in the same position and asked to write an essay about a particular topic themselves, only the Americans continued to believe that the essay was reflective of the writer's attitudes, whereas the Korean participants took into account the situational restraints, and acknowledged that the content of the essay may not truly represent the views held by the writer. Even in regards to interpreting one's own behaviour, individualistic cultures possess the tendency to make situational attributions for their own behaviours. This variation may arise out of one's need to protect their self-esteem or confidence, but also illustrates the differences in cognition and perception between actors and observers.Broader Implications
Findings on the actor-observer asymmetry extend beyond social perception, influencing how individuals internalize judgments from others. Others’ attributions can influence one’s self-view. When someone is frequently exposed to a critical observer who attributes mistakes to personal flaws or enduring character traits, they may begin to adopt this perspective, interpreting their own actions through the same lens. Internalizing such criticism can lead to a belief that their abilities are severely lacking and that their character is fundamentally flawed. Conversely, if a person regularly hears a supportive observer acknowledge their competence while recognizing that certain tasks are inherently challenging, they are more likely to develop a balanced approach to interpreting both their successes and setbacks.Related concepts
Self-serving bias
In attribution, the actor–observer asymmetry is often confused with the concept ofCorrespondence bias
The correspondence bias is similar to actor-observer asymmetry in that both involve systematic differences in how people attribute behavior. However, the correspondence bias specifically focuses on disposition-congruent judgements of others based on their behaviours, even if these behaviours originate due to the situation. It states that observers believe they know an individual’s underlying disposition solely based on their actions. Actor-observer asymmetry, on the other hand, more closely aligns with a self-serving bias. Much like actor-observer asymmetry, correspondence bias is supported by several cognitive and environmental factors that contribute to its prevalence. There are four key mechanisms that each produce different forms of this bias: lack of awareness, unrealistic expectations, inflated categorizations, and incomplete corrections. A lack of awareness is constituted by ignorance of the situation in forming attributions. This often occurs due to naive realism, the tendency to believe that one’s own perception of reality is objective and unbiased. Such beliefs may cause observers to think the actor shares their interpretation of the situation, preventing further deliberation to consider situational factors. Unrealistic expectations include underestimating the power of the situation in various contexts. Interestingly, situational influence can also be overestimated, although this condition does not result in the correspondence bias. Inflated categorization refers to how ambiguous behaviors can be “inflated” due to the situation in which they occurred. If a perciever uses contextual cues to infer the nature, strength, etc. of behaviours, any disparities between their inference and reality will become especially striking. These disparities then prompt strong dispositional attributions. Incomplete corrections are the inability to properly correct for one’s immediate assessment of the situation. Observers may judge based on disposition at first, then consider situational factors, but the adjustment between these cognitive mechanisms is not always optimal. Thus, disposition is still largely overrepresented in cognitive appraisals. Despite the specific mechanism that produces correspondence bias, all forms highlight the pervasive tendency to overattribute behavior to dispositional factors while neglecting situational influences. This process gives rise to various positive and negative implications. For example, while correspondence bias gives observers control of their social world by predicting others, it can also lead to false interpretations of the situation. In some cases, the benefits outweigh the costs by saving the observer valuable time and cognitive effort, but nevertheless, this heuristic must be used with caution. Additionally, the correspondence bias has a forward thinking component. Observers tend to attribute the actions of others to their future behavior. When someone witnesses another person's actions, they are likely to attribute those same actions to that person's future behavior, which is why first impressions are so important. Once an action is observed, it can be difficult for the observer to imagine the actor behaving differently. On the other hand, actors may find it difficult to attribute a single action to their own overall behavior. They view themselves as more responsive and in control of situational matters. While actors can attribute their past actions, observers can only attribute the one action they have witnessed to the actor, leading them to attribute dispositional rather than situational factors to the actor's behavior.Trait Ascription
The concept of trait ascription bias provides an alternative explanation for actor-observer asymmetry. Trait ascription bias refers to the tendency to perceive one's own personality, beliefs, and behaviors as dynamic and adaptable while viewing others as more fixed and predictable. This leads people to oversimplify and categorize others based on their actions, attributing behavior to inherent traits, whereas they see their own actions as influenced by context and circumstance.See also
*References
Bibliography
* * **Also available in: * * * * * * {{DEFAULTSORT:Actor-observer asymmetry Cognitive biases Asymmetry Error Causal fallacies