Page 187 - The Social Animal

Social Cognition 169

whose task it was to answer them. An observer watched this simulated
quiz show and then estimated the questioner’s and the contestant’s
general knowledge. Try to put yourself in the role of the observer.
What do you see? Well, unless you are very careful, you will see one
very smart, knowledgeable person and one rather stupid person.
But take a closer look. Notice how these two roles constrain the
behavior of the participants.The questioner is likely to come up with
some fairly difficult questions based on esoteric knowledge: “In what
baseball park did Babe Ruth hit his second-to-last home run?”
“What is the capital city of Lithuania?” and “What is the date of
87
Thomas Jefferson’s death?” By simply asking these questions, the
questioner looks smart. On the other hand, the contestant is faced
with answering these difficult questions and is likely to miss a few.
This makes him or her look a little stupid. And this is exactly what
Ross and his colleagues found. The observers felt that the question-
ers were far more knowledgeable than the contestants. However,
since everyone was randomly assigned to their roles, it is extremely
unlikely that all of the questioners were actually more knowledgeable
than all of the contestants. What is most interesting is that the ob-
servers knew that the participants had been randomly assigned to
these roles. Yet they failed to consider the impact of these social roles
in making their judgments about the quiz show participants and fell
into the trap of attributing what they saw to personal dispositions.
If the fundamental attribution error were limited to judgments
about college professors and quiz show participants, it probably would
not be much of a cause for concern. However, its implications are far-
reaching. Consider a common reaction of most Americans to a person
using food stamps at a supermarket: “She is lazy; if she just tried
harder, she could get a job.” Or consider this characterization of a con-
victed burglar:“He is a terrible human being; what type of villain could
commit such acts?” Both descriptions could conceivably be accurate,
but what is more likely is that they represent the fundamental attribu-
tion error in action. Although this is not the place for a full discussion
of the situational determinants of poverty and crime, there can be
many factors other than personal characteristics that can explain why
a person is poor or commits a crime. These include lack of job oppor-
tunities, illiteracy, economic recession, the lack of positive role models
in one’s neighborhood, and growing up in a dysfunctional family.
I do not mean to imply that a criminal should not be held ac-
countable for his or her actions. Criminals are responsible for what