![]() This bias can be prevented through perspective taking wherein I imagine the behavior from my sister’s perspective, i.e., as if I were the one who bounced the check. Rather, it is usually because I underestimated expenses, made a mathematical/calculation error, or forgot an expense (essentially spending the same money twice). However, on the occasions, I have accidentally overdrawn my checking account it was never due to overindulgence. Within the observer role, I have typically taken the position that my sister has unnecessarily indulged financially resulting in the bouncing of checks. ![]() On more than one occasion she has overdrawn her checking account resulting in numerous bounced checks, and ultimately, asking my father for another money loan. For instance, one the ongoing family dramas in my life involves my sister and her seemingly poor life choices. Upon reflection, I realize I have experienced the actor-observer difference first hand. As the actor, salient factors revolve around me and the context (environment) which may or may not influence my behavior, whereas as an observer the salient factor is the behavior of the actor. Lastly, environmental salience plays a factor differing based on role: actor or observer. As the actor, I am able to reflect on similar situations and my behaviors in them to determine if my behavior is consistent or distinctive, whereas the observer does not have information regarding the behavior of the actor in other situations and contexts to discriminate between situational or dispositional patterns. Second, actors and observers have differing available information relating to “consistency and distinctiveness” (Moskowitz, 2005, p. As the actor, I am aware of my motivations and goals directing my behavior, whereas when observing others it is necessary to infer motives and goals relating to behavior. First, actors and observers have differing available information in the form of “self-knowledge and insight” (Moskowitz, 2005, p. ![]() According to Moskowitz (2005), there are several reasons why differential evaluations occur. However, this tendency does not transfer to evaluations of our own behavior in similar variable contexts, i.e., the actor-observer difference (Moskowitz, 2005). The research has indicated a clear fundamental attribution error bias wherein individuals typically underestimate variabilities in context (situation) in favor of dispositional attributions when evaluating others (Crisp & Turner, 2010 Moskowitz, 2005l O’Sullivan, 2003).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |