FUNDAMENTAL ATTRIBUTION ERROR

FUNDAMENTAL ATTRIBUTION ERROR
In attribution theory, the fundamental attribution error (also known as correspondence bias or over-attribution effect) is the tendency for people to over-emphasize dispositional, or personality-based, explanation for behaviors observed in others while under-emphasizing situational explanations. In other words, people have an unjustified tendency to assume that a person's actions depend on what “kind” of person that person is rather than on the social and environmental forces influencing the person. Over-attribution is less likely, perhaps even inverted, when people explain their own behavior; this discrepancy is called the actor-observer bias.
The term was coined by Lee Ross(Ross, 1977){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 (Gilbert & Malone, 1995){3}; Gilbert,1998{4}.
Author Malcolm Gladwell provides a more soft-spoken definition of the fundamental attribution error: he defines it as extrapolation from a measured characteristic to an unrelated characteristic. He cites as an example “a typical study {that} whoed that 'how neat a student's assignments were or how punctual he was told you almost nothing about how often he attended class or hoe neat his room or his personal appearance was” (Gladwell, 2000, p.72){5}. By basing his definition on the comparison of one behavior with another behavior rather than one motivation with another motivation, Gladwell avoids the entanglements of complex questions about the “essence” of a person.
WHY THE FUNDAMENTAL ATTRIBUTION ERROR OCCURS
There is no universally-accepted explanation for the fundamental attribution error. Here are several hypotheses of the causes of the error.
Just-world hypothesis: The belief that people get what they deserve what they get, which was first theorized by Melvin Lerner(1977){6}. Attributing failures to dispositional causes rather than situational causes, which are unchangeable and uncontrollable, satisfies our need to believe that the world is fair and we have control over life. We are motivated to see a just world because this reduces our perceived threats (Burger,1981){7}; Walster, 1966{8}, gives a sense of security, helps us find meaning in difficult and unsettling circumstances, and benefits us psychologically (Gilbert & Malone, 1995). Unfortunately, the just world hypotheses also results in a tendency for people to blame and derogate the victim of a tragic or accidental event, such as victims of rape (Abrams, Viki, Masser, and Bohner, 2003 {9}; Bell, Kuriloff, & Lottes,1994{10} and domestic abuse {Summers & Feldman, 1984{11}) to reassure themselves of their unsuspectability to such events. People may even go to such extremes as the victim's faults in “past life” to pursue justification for their bad outcomes (Woolger, 1988){12}.
Salience of the actor: We tend to attribute an observed effect to potential causes that capture our attention. When we observe other people, the person is the primary reference point while the situation is overlooked as if it is nothing but mere background. So, attributions for others' behavior are more likely to focus on the person on the person we see, not the situational forces acting upon that person that we may not be aware of (Lassiter, Munhall, Ploutz-Snyder & Breitenbecher, 2002 {13}; Robinson & McArthur, 1982{14}; Smith & Miller, 1979{15}. (When we observe ourselves, we are more aware of the forces acting upon us. Such a differential inward vs. outward orientation (Storms,1973){16} accounts for the actor-observer bias).
REDUCING THE ERROR'S EFFECTS
A number of de-biasing techniques have been found effective in reducing the effect of the fundamental attribution error:
Taking heed of “consensus” information. If most people behave the same way when put in the
same situation, then the situation is more likely to be the cause of the behavior.
Asking oneself how one would behave in the same situation.
Looking for unseen causes; specifically, looking or less-salient factors.
Additionally, it was found that if that if the participants in a study were told that there were ulterior motives for a writer to take a particular position, such as a professor holding a certain view point on the topic, they were less likely to fall victim to the fundamental attribution error.