Attribution Biases

Attributions are seldom accurate. People can operate with only their own take on conflict, so errors in explaining the event repeatedly occur. To begin, we know that a person’s self-perception of behavior correlates poorly with how a partner perceives the behavior (Sillars et al., 2000; Sypher & Sypher, 1984).

First, the actor-observer bias (or the fundamental attribution error) concerns how we tend to rely on internal factors when making inferences about other people’s behavior, whereas we tend to see our own behavior as externally caused (Canary & Spitzberg, 1990). We experience the external factors that affect our behav­ior—for example, being late to work: the late-night at work, the last minute preparation that was needed, the unforeseen errand, and the nightmare traffic. But we cannot experience the other person’s external constraints, so we place more weight on internal factors that provide ready-made explanations (e.g., lazy, unreliable). The “ultimate” fundamental attribution error occurs when we infer that the other person’s negative behavior is due to internal factors but their posi­tive behaviors are due to external factors (“She did a good job on this report—she must have gotten some help.”).

Next, the self-serving bias leads us to interpret an event in ways that are more favorable to ourselves and less favorable to the other person (De Dreu et al., 1995), and we see our own behavior more positively than not (Sypher & Sypher, 1984). Combining the actor-observer bias with the self-serving bias we find that people tend to attribute positive conflict behaviors and outcomes to their own internal features, whereas they attribute negative conflict messages and outcomes to their partners (Sillars et al., 2001).

People also notice the other person’s negative behavior more than their posi­tive behavior—this is called the negativity bias (Kellermann, 1984). Negative behavior (more than positive behavior) leads to attributions in part because it is unexpected and in part because it appears threatening (Canary & Spitzberg, 1990; Forgas, Bower, & Moylan, 1990). In other words, people tend to think that the other person performed more negative behaviors and fewer positive behaviors; they, in contrast, think the opposite: they performed more positive behaviors and the other person performed more negative ones. This perception of negative behavior can lead to escalation because the negative behavior of one person can lead to reciprocal negative behavior by the other (remember that both people have this bias, so both people will reciprocate negative behavior). This negative behavior then confirms the original negative attribution and in turn can stimulate more hostile behavior. Neither person wants to be the first to compromise, so the conflict escalates (De Dreu et al., 1995).

The relationship-enhancing bias indicates that happy couples make internal attri­butions for positive behaviors and external attributions for negative behaviors. Unhappy couples do the opposite, seeing positive behaviors as due to external forces and therefore not to be repeated but seeing negative behaviors as internal and repeatable (Baucom, Sayers, & Duhe, 1989). Satisfied partners view positive as well as negative behaviors as more positive in intent, motivated by selfless and praiseworthy attitudes (Fincham, Beach, & Nelson, 1987).

Although discrepancies in attribution occur, attribution differences between satisfied partners are greater in dissatisfied relationships. People who attribute their relationship problems to the partners’ negative behavior will likely use direct fight­ing tactics.

Based upon their attributions, people create narratives about their conflicts and their overall relationship. These narratives reflect the variety of attributional biases we have just discussed. These narratives frame interpretations of the other person’s behavior and those interpretations lead to additional narratives. People respond to the interpretations as well as the behaviors. Two people can create irreconcilable narratives, which in turn lead to incompatible attributions about causes and communication (Sillars et al., 2001).

Attributional biases are also affected by a person’s mood (Forgas, 2001). Peo­ple’s moods affect the information they notice and the processing strategies they use. People in a good mood use simple heuristic processing whereas sad people use more complex processing methods (Forgas, 1995). People also are more likely to recall information that is congruent with their mood. More telling, people are generally unaware of mood influences, and the more confidence they have in their judgments, the more mistaken they are (Forgas, 1998).

Emotion also influences attributions of responsibility. People engage in mood congruent attribution processes. Happy people tend to use external, unstable, and specific causes for conflict. People who are sad tend to attribute the cause to internal, stable, and global factors regarding themselves. The angry person likely believes that the other person is responsible for the conflict. Guilty people tend to perceive themselves as the cause of whatever happened (Keltner, Ellsworth, & Edwards, 1993). Additionally, happy people tend to make more optimistic and understanding judgments, but people in negative moods tend to make more pes­simistic and self-defeating judgments (Forgas, 1994).

The point to this material concerns how explanations that we give to events are quite biased, and these biases are the product of another irrational factor—mood.

Conclusion 9.5: Attribution errors distort explanations for conflict events and behav­iors are distorted by them, so you should adjust your attributions to reduce the errors in your own attributions.

Suggestion 9.5: Realize that your attributions are vulnerable to errors. To obtain attri­bution control adjust your thoughts to strategic conflict to minimize these errors.

Suggestion 9.6: “Preattribute annoying events and information about such events— to the extent possible—to motives and circumstances that make the induction of annoyance appear unintentional and nondeliberate, and... reattribute annoying events and information about such events in the same manner” (Zillman, 1993, p. 382; emphasis original).

Perception and attribution constitute the bases of conflict management. Con­flict requires that people recall and interpret complex and ambiguous information. Fincham and Bradbury’s (1987) Attribution Efficacy Model claims that during conflict in close relationships, people ask two questions: What caused the con­flict? and How can the conflict be solved? In our efforts to answer these questions we try to determine blame from among possible sources such as ourselves, our partners, the relationship, the external environment, God’s will, chance, luck, fate or whatever. When we blame ourselves, we consider causes that are external to ourselves, unstable, and specific to one isolated conflict. When we blame our partners, we use causes that contain intention, stability, control, and general influ­ences (Doherty, 1981). How we assign blame then directly affects us and not the other person. Our responses also affect our choices for strategic communication during conflict (Fincham & Bradbury, 1987).

This leads to our final suggestion for this chapter:

Conclusion 9.6: People tend to believe falsely that their attributions of conflict influ­ence how the other person should behave.

Suggestion 9.7: Be mindful that your attributions directly affect your own conflict strategies first but can have only indirect effects on your partner.