The Actor-observer Bias In Social Psychology

The actor-observer bias is a type of attribution bias. It is a concept in social psychology that refers to the tendency to attribute one’s behaviors to external causes (“I was wrong because the problem was too difficult”) and, at the same time, attributes other people’s behaviors to internal factors or causes (” Ana made a mistake because she is not smart”).

The actor-observer bias plays a key role in how we perceive and interact with other people. In essence, people tend to make different assignments depending on whether they are actors or observers in a situation.

The actor-observer bias

When a person judges their own behavior and is the actor, they are more likely to attribute their actions and results – especially if they are negative – to situational circumstances (eg bad weather) or transient peculiarities such as tiredness, than to internal and relatively stable variables such as personality.

However, when an observer explains the behavior of another person (ie the actor), he is more likely to attribute his behavior to the actors’ general mood rather than the factors of the specific situation.

The actor-observer bias tends to be more pronounced in situations where the results are negative: somehow, by blaming the situation or the circumstances of what happened, we protect our self-concept.

However, when something negative happens to another person, others often blame them for their personal choices, behaviors, and actions, not for the external circumstances.

In this sense, the researchers found that people do not fall so far into the actor-observer bias with people they know well, such as close friends and family. But why does this happen?

Apparently, as we have more information about the needs, motivations, and thoughts of these close individuals, we are more likely to take into account the external forces that affect their behavior.

One possible reason for the actor-observer bias is that when people are the actors in a situation, they are more aware of their circumstances.

However, on many occasions, when we make an assignment in which the actor is another, we don’t know a good part of these circumstances. What we have is the memory of someone associated with stable characteristics.

The fundamental attribution error

Often, the actor-observer bias is confused with the fundamental attribution error. However, while both are types of attribution bias, they are different from each other.

The actor-observer bias and the fundamental attribution error are basically two sides of the same coin. Both terms refer to the same aspect of attributive bias, but they do not mean the same thing.

Unlike the actor-observer bias, the fundamental attribution error does not take our behavior into account. It is often restricted to internal causes of other people’s behavior.

Our tendency to explain another person’s behavior based on internal factors such as personality or disposition is a fundamental attribution error.

Therefore, the fundamental attribution error focuses only on other people’s behavior. They are strictly attributions to the behavior of others.

We can say that while the fundamental attribution error is an attribution bias that discusses our tendency to explain someone’s behavior according to their internal dispositions, the actor-observer bias compares the way we make attributions when we are in one place. or another (actors or observers).

The impact of the actor-observer bias

The actor-observer bias can be problematic as it can lead to misunderstandings and arguments. This is because, having two different points of view, that of the observer and that of the actor, two people may not agree with the judgment about a given situation.

Indeed, it seems logical to think that there can be no agreement when both parties attribute individual behaviors to external situations ( external attribution) and the other party’s situation to its characteristics (internal attribution).

Taking a step back and identifying the circumstances in which Hannah was unable to resolve the issue, or understanding why John lied, can prevent a conflict, as well as rid us of the error and provide us with a fairer view.

If we do this to ourselves, why not try to do it to others?