Fundamental Attribution Error: Shifting the Blame Game

FEAWe all try to make sense of the behaviors we observe in ourselves and others.

However, sometimes this process can be marred by cognitive biases that skew our understanding of why others act the way they do.

One such bias is the fundamental attribution error (FAE).

At the most basic level, the FAE denotes a tendency to overestimate the degree to which somebody’s behavior is determined by their personal characteristics, attitudes, or beliefs.

At the same time, we also tend to minimize the influence of the surrounding situation and broader context on that behavior.

The FAE plays a crucial role in shaping our perceptions and interactions with others and influences various aspects of our personal and professional lives.

In this article, we explore the fundamental attribution error in depth, including its causes, manifestations, negative consequences, and strategies for mitigation.

Before you continue, we thought you might like to download our three Positive CBT Exercises for free. These science-based exercises will provide you with detailed insight into positive Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (CBT) and give you the tools to apply it in your therapy or coaching.

What Is the Fundamental Attribution Error?

In the 1970s, social psychologist Lee D. Ross was the first to identify and name the fundamental attribution error.

It is a form of cognitive bias and refers to the tendency of individuals to overemphasize dispositional factors and to underestimate situational influences when explaining the behavior of others (Ross, 1977).

The FAE is also known as the correspondence bias (Gilbert & Malone, 1995). In essence, it observes that people are inclined to attribute behavior to internal characteristics such as personality traits, beliefs, or attitudes, while overlooking the impact of external factors such as environmental circumstances or social pressure.

For example, if someone fails to meet a deadline at work, individuals prone to the FAE may automatically assume that the person in question is lazy, incompetent, or has a bad attitude, while failing to consider external factors such as a heavy workload, technical difficulties, or difficulties in the person’s private life.

The FAE arises from various cognitive processes, including perceptual salience, whereby individuals focus more on observable behavior than contextual cues. Another one involves cognitive simplification, which leads to the categorization of complex phenomena into easily understandable dispositional constructs (Fiske & Taylor, 1991).

Cultural norms and socialization also play a role, as cultural values emphasizing individual agency and achievement may exacerbate the tendency to make dispositional attributions (Nisbett, 2003).

Despite its ubiquity, the FAE can lead to misunderstandings, stereotypes, and prejudice, as we may inaccurately judge others based on limited information and biased attributions (Dovidio et al., 2018).

Recognizing and mitigating the fundamental attribution error is crucial for promoting accurate social perception, empathy, and interpersonal understanding.

Several psychologists have contributed to our understanding of the fundamental attribution error through their research and theoretical insights. Some of the most notable figures and their key insights include:

1. Fritz Heider

Widely regarded as the father of attribution theory, Heider (1958) proposed the fundamental principles underlying social perception and attribution in his seminal work The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations.

He introduced the concept of attribution and laid the groundwork for understanding how we make sense of others’ behavior.

2. Lee Ross

Ross is credited with coining the term “fundamental attribution error” and conducting pioneering research on the phenomenon.

Ross’s (1977) influential paper “The Intuitive Psychologist and His Shortcomings: Distortions in the Attribution Process” provided important empirical evidence for the tendency to overemphasize dispositional explanations for behavior.

3. Edward E. Jones and Keith E. Davis

Jones and Davis (1965) expanded on Heider’s attribution theory and conducted groundbreaking experiments to elucidate the underlying mechanisms of the fundamental attribution error.

Their research, including their classic correspondence bias study, demonstrated how observers attribute behavior to internal dispositions even when situational factors are salient.

4. Richard Nisbett

Nisbett’s work on social cognition and causal attribution has contributed significantly to understanding the cognitive processes involved in the fundamental attribution error.

His research, particularly on cultural differences in attributional tendencies, has highlighted the role of cultural context in shaping social perception (Nisbett & Ross, 1980; Nisbett, 2003).

5. Daniel Gilbert

Gilbert’s research on social perception and judgment has explored various biases, including the fundamental attribution error.

His work illuminates the cognitive mechanisms underlying attributional processes and the implications for decision-making and interpersonal relations (Gilbert & Malone, 1995).

6. Susan T. Fiske

Fiske’s contributions to social psychology have shed light on the role of social cognition in shaping attributions and interpersonal judgments.

Her research addresses the intersection of stereotypes, prejudice, and attributional biases, offering insights into the broader implications of the fundamental attribution error for intergroup relations (Fiske & Taylor, 1991).

Fundamental attribution error - concepts unwrapped

You may also enjoy this short explanatory video, which concisely sums up the key features of the FAE.

3 Causes of the Fundamental Attribution Error

Several factors tend to contribute to the occurrence of the FAE. The three most important ones include perceptual salience, cognitive simplification, and cultural norms. All are key aspects of this phenomenon. Let us look at them in more detail.

1. Perceptual salience

When observing behavior, we tend to focus more on the clearly visible actions of the person rather than the perhaps more subtle aspects of the surrounding context.

In other words, we all tend to focus on what is easiest to perceive. This heightened attention to the individual’s actions amplifies the tendency to attribute behavior to internal characteristics (Gilbert & Malone, 1995).

2. Cognitive simplification

The human mind often seeks to simplify complex phenomena by categorizing them into easily understandable constructs.

As a result, we may default to dispositional explanations when making sense of behavior, neglecting the nuances and complexities of a variety of situational influences (Heider, 1958).

3. Cultural norms

Cultural values and norms can significantly shape the way people interpret and explain behavior.

In individualistic cultures, where more emphasis is placed on personal agency and achievement, the fundamental attribution error may be more pronounced compared to collectivist cultures, which prioritize social harmony, interdependence, and attention to environment and context (Miller, 1984; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Nisbett, 2003; Lee & Fiore, 2020).

Research by Miller in 1984 revealed contrasting trends between American and Hindu children in India. While American children increasingly relied on dispositional explanations as they matured, Hindu children leaned more toward situational attributions.

This disparity aligns with the notion that individualistic societies like the United States place greater emphasis on personal achievement and uniqueness, fostering a propensity to prioritize individual characteristics in attribution processes (Miller, 1984).

Nisbett (2003), too, has conducted fascinating research on differences in attention, perception, and interpretation between American and Japanese students. For example, he has found that Americans pay more attention to figures and that Japanese students pay more attention to the ground when looking at images of fish.

Download 3 Free Positive CBT Exercises (PDF)

These detailed, science-based exercises will equip you or your clients with tools to find new pathways to reduce suffering and more effectively cope with life stressors.

3 Attribution Error Examples

The FAE can have a negative impact on social dynamics and social justice more broadly, but it can also significantly influence us in our everyday lives (Schwarz, 2006).

Let us look at three examples of how the FAE can show up in fairly innocuous-seeming everyday situations.

1. Traffic jam misunderstanding

Sally is driving to work when she encounters a traffic jam on the highway. Frustrated and stressed about being late, she notices another driver aggressively switching lanes and honking at other drivers. Almost immediately, Sally attributes the driver’s behavior to being rude and impatient.

She doesn’t consider that the driver might be rushing to a hospital or facing an urgent situation. In this scenario, Sarah is making the fundamental attribution error of attributing the driver’s behavior solely to internal factors rather than considering external circumstances such as emergencies.

2. Office presentation perception

During a team meeting at work, Todd, who is a reserved, introverted, diligent, thorough, and extremely skilled worker, presents his project findings. He seems nervous and stumbles over his words, which leads some colleagues to think he is unprepared or lacks competence.

They attribute his performance to his personality traits, labeling him as “incompetent” or “not leadership material.” What they don’t realize is that Todd spent extra hours preparing the presentation and is usually confident in his work.

The fundamental attribution error occurs when his colleagues overlook situational factors such as public speaking anxiety and instead attribute his behavior solely to internal traits.

3. Supermarket encounter

Alice is at the supermarket and notices an elderly man struggling to reach a product on the top shelf. She sees another shopper walk past without offering to help, and she immediately thinks, “How selfish!” Alice attributes the shopper’s behavior to a lack of empathy or kindness, assuming it reflects his personality.

However, what Amy doesn’t know is that the shopper suffers from severe back pain and can’t lift heavy objects. His failure to assist the elderly man is due to physical limitations rather than a lack of concern for others. This situation illustrates the fundamental attribution error, as Amy incorrectly attributes the shopper’s behavior solely to internal traits without considering external circumstances.

All of these examples show just how pervasive the FAE is and how it can impact our judgments in a wide variety of circumstances.

Negative Consequences of the FAE in Work and Life

Fundemental Attribution ErrorThe fundamental attribution error can have highly detrimental effects on certain groups of individuals, social cohesion, and justice as a whole.

It can impact educational parity, decisions made in the justice system, fairness at work, and numerous other areas of public life.


When people consistently attribute behavior to dispositional factors, they may develop stereotypes based on race, gender, or other social categories (Sabini et al., 2001).

These stereotypes can perpetuate prejudice and discrimination, undermining social cohesion and equality (Hamilton & Trolier, 1986).


The tendency to make dispositional attributions for out-group members’ behavior while attributing situational factors to in-group members can fuel prejudice and intergroup hostility.

This “us vs. them” mentality reinforces ingroup favoritism and out-group derogation, hindering intergroup cooperation and understanding (Tajfel & Turner, 1979).

Victim blaming

Consider also the particularly troubling example of victim blaming in this context. In instances where expressing sympathy or holding the true perpetrator accountable induces cognitive dissonance, individuals may find themselves assigning responsibility to the victim for their own suffering.

Phrases like “He had it coming” or “She was asking for it” demonstrate this unfortunate tendency.

Self-serving bias

We often attribute our successes to internal factors such as skill or effort, while attributing our failures to external factors such as bad luck or unfair circumstances.

A student who performs well on an exam may attribute their success to intelligence or hard work, while attributing a poor grade to the difficulty of the test or inadequate teaching.

On a larger socioeconomic playing-field, we may also ignore advantages, privileges, connections, and other factors when we think about our own and others’ success.

Some people may, for example, blame others for being financially less successful than themselves, disregarding crucial environmental factors that have contributed to and facilitated their own success.

Actor–observer bias

This bias involves attributing our own behavior to external factors while attributing the behavior of others to internal factors.

For example, if we arrive late to a meeting, we may attribute our own tardiness to traffic or unforeseen circumstances. However, if a colleague arrives late, we may attribute their behavior to laziness, poor time management, or a bad attitude.

Cultural misunderstandings

In cross-cultural interactions, individuals may misinterpret the behavior of others due to cultural differences in communication styles, social norms, and values.

This can lead to various erroneous attributions and misunderstandings, exacerbating intergroup tensions and conflicts.

Recognizing the Fundamental Attribution Error in 4 Steps

If we wish to become more mindful and alert about the various trappings of the FAE, there are some simple but effective steps we can take. They involve perspective taking and shifting our critical attention to situational factors.

Let us look at these steps in order.

  1. Pause and reflect.
    Before jumping to conclusions about someone’s behavior, take a moment to consider alternative explanations and situational factors that may have influenced their actions.
  2. Consider context.
    Pay attention to the situational context in which behavior occurs, as it can provide valuable insights into the motives and constraints shaping individuals’ actions.
  3. Practice empathy.
    Put yourself in the other person’s shoes and try to understand their perspective and experiences. Empathizing with others can help mitigate the tendency to make overly simplistic attributions.
  4. Seek information.
    Gather additional information or perspectives before forming judgments about someone’s behavior. Avoid relying solely on first impressions or limited observations.

These four steps can be powerful and effective strategies for checking our own cognitive assumptions and conclusions.

4 Tips for Overcoming the FAE

Overcome FAEIf we want to overcome our propensity to cognitively biased thinking in our interactions with others, here are four tips for overcoming the FAE that we can all practice and apply directly in our everyday interactions.

  1. Increase awareness.
    Educate yourself and others about the FAE and its implications for social perception and interaction.
  2. Challenge assumptions.
    Encourage critical thinking and skepticism toward automatic attributions, promoting a more nuanced and complex understanding of human behavior.
  3. Promote cultural sensitivity.
    Foster an environment of intercultural competency and awareness, recognizing and respecting cultural diversity and how it may manifest in different perspectives and interpretations of behavior.
  4. Encourage perspective taking.
    Encourage individuals to consider alternative viewpoints and imagine themselves in others’ situations. This helps foster empathy and understanding.

In sum, avoiding the FAE entails a mixture of educating, raising awareness, honing sensitivity, and perspective taking and rests on the ability to mentalize. Luckily, these are all things we can practice and get better at.

World’s Largest Positive Psychology Resource

The Positive Psychology Toolkit© is a groundbreaking practitioner resource containing over 500 science-based exercises, activities, interventions, questionnaires, and assessments created by experts using the latest positive psychology research.

Updated monthly. 100% Science-based.

“The best positive psychology resource out there!”
Emiliya Zhivotovskaya, Flourishing Center CEO

Helpful Resources From

At, you will find a wide variety of resources that can help you and your clients become more self-aware, more mindful, and more empathetic in your interactions with others.

In particular, you might like to download these Positive CBT Exercises for free. These science-based exercises will provide you with detailed insight into positive CBT and give you the tools to apply it in your therapy or coaching.

Increasing awareness of Unhelpful Thinking Styles can help you change the way you think about yourself and your environment. This worksheet will also strengthen your ability to detect cognitive biases more generally and, through this awareness, your ability to transform your behavior.

Our Neutralizing Judgmental Thoughts worksheet is also very useful for tackling your potential biases. This exercise introduces the CLEAR acronym, which is a useful heuristic for adopting a more helpful outlook in your interactions with others.

You may also find the following blog articles on cognitive bias, confirmation bias, and negativity bias interesting:

If you’re looking for more science-based ways to help others through CBT, check out this collection of 17 validated positive CBT tools for practitioners. Use them to help others overcome unhelpful thoughts and feelings and develop more positive behaviors.

A Take-Home Message

The FAE reminds us of the inherent complexities and potential pitfalls of human perception and judgment.

By recognizing our shared tendency to attribute behavior to dispositional factors and actively considering situational influences before we make judgments, we can cultivate a more accurate and compassionate understanding of ourselves and others.

Through perspective taking, critical thinking, and cultural sensitivity, we can learn to navigate our social interactions with greater insight and humility, thus fostering empathy, understanding, and cooperation in our communities and beyond.

We hope you enjoyed reading this article. For more information, don’t forget to download our three Positive CBT Exercises for free.

  • Dovidio, J. F., Hewstone, M., Glick, P., & Esses, V. M. (Eds.). (2018). The SAGE handbook of prejudice, stereotyping and discrimination. Sage.
  • Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition. McGraw-Hill.
  • Gilbert, D. T., & Malone, P. S. (1995). The correspondence bias. Psychological Bulletin, 117(1), 21–38.
  • Hamilton, D. L., & Trolier, T. K. (1986). Stereotypes and stereotyping: An overview of the cognitive approach. Academic Press.
  • Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. Wiley.
  • Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965). From acts to dispositions: The attribution process in person perception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (vol. 2, pp. 219–266). Academic Press.
  • Lee, W., & Fiore, R. A. (2020). Measuring levels of fundamental attribution error ascribed to leadership of entrepreneurial organizations across national cultures. Journal of Business Strategies, 37(1), 1–28.
  • Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253.
  • Miller, J. G. (1984). Culture and the development of everyday social explanation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(5), 961–978.
  • Nisbett, R. E., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Prentice-Hall.
  • Nisbett, R. E. (2003). The geography of thought: How Asians and Westerners think differently – and why. Free Press.
  • Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 173–220.
  • Sabini, J., Siepmann, M., & Stein, J. (2001). The really fundamental attribution error in social psychological research. Psychological Inquiry, 12(1), 1–15.
  • Schwarz, N. (2006). Attitude research: Between Ockham’s razor and the fundamental attribution error. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(1), 19–21.
  • Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–37). Brooks/Cole.

Let us know your thoughts

Your email address will not be published.


Read other articles by their category

3 Positive CBT Exercises (PDF)