The self-serving bias
It is well known that people tend to accept credit for success and deny responsibility for failure. More generally, we also tend to attribute our success to internal factors such as ability, but attribute failure to external factors such as bad luck or task difficulty.This is known as the self-serving bias. How often have we heard governments taking credit when
there is national economic growth and prosperity, attributing itto their economic policies and prudent financial management? And yet, in times of economic hardship, they are quick to blame external causes, such as the international money markets or worldwide recession. Although the strength of the self-serving bias varies across cultures, it has been found to occur cross-culturally (Fletcher & Ward, 1988; Kashima & Triandis, 1986). The usual explanation is motivational factors: that is, the need for individuals to enhance their self-esteem when they succeed and protect their self-esteem when they fail. Attributing success to internal causes has been referred to as the self-enhancing bias,and attributing failure to external causes as the self-protection bias (Miller & Ross, 1975). But Miller and Ross argue that there is only clear support for the self-enhancing bias, and that people do often accept personal responsibility for failure. They also claim that the self-enhancing bias can be explained by cognitive factors without recourse to motivational explanations. For example,we are more likely to make self-attributions for expected than unexpected outcomes, and most of us expect to succeed rather than fail. Even so, it is difficult to argue against the motivational hypothesis, and the prevailing consensus is that both motivational and cognitive factors have a part in the self-serving bias (Ross & Fletcher, 1985). The motivation for self-enhancement is also linked to achievementattributions. According to Weiner’s (1985; 1986) attributional theory of motivation and emotion, the attributions people make for success and failure elicit different emotional consequences, and are characterized by three underlying dimensions – locus, stability and control
The locus dimension refers to whether we attribute success and failure internally or externally. Consistent with the selfenhancement bias, we are more likely to feel happier and better about ourselves if we attribute our success internally (to factors such as ability and effort) rather than externally (to good luck or an easy task). In contrast, attributing failure internally is less likely to make us feel good about ourselves than attributing it externally.
The stability dimension refers to whether the cause is perceived as something fixed and stable (like personality or ability) or something changing and unstable (such as motivation or effort). The controllability dimension refers to whether we feel we have any control over the cause. The tendency to attribute negative outcomes and failure to internal, stable and uncontrollable causes is strongly associated with clinical depression and has been referred to as a depressive attributional style. The reformulated learned helplessness model of depression (Abramson et al., 1978) views this attributional style as directly causing depression. But others have argued that it is merely a symptom, reflecting the affective state of the depressed individual. Whether it is a cause or symptom, attributional retraining programmes (Försterling, 1985), in which people are taught to make more self-enhancing attributions, are widely accepted as an important therapeutic process for recovery from depression.
It is well known that people tend to accept credit for success and deny responsibility for failure. More generally, we also tend to attribute our success to internal factors such as ability, but attribute failure to external factors such as bad luck or task difficulty.This is known as the self-serving bias. How often have we heard governments taking credit when
there is national economic growth and prosperity, attributing itto their economic policies and prudent financial management? And yet, in times of economic hardship, they are quick to blame external causes, such as the international money markets or worldwide recession. Although the strength of the self-serving bias varies across cultures, it has been found to occur cross-culturally (Fletcher & Ward, 1988; Kashima & Triandis, 1986). The usual explanation is motivational factors: that is, the need for individuals to enhance their self-esteem when they succeed and protect their self-esteem when they fail. Attributing success to internal causes has been referred to as the self-enhancing bias,and attributing failure to external causes as the self-protection bias (Miller & Ross, 1975). But Miller and Ross argue that there is only clear support for the self-enhancing bias, and that people do often accept personal responsibility for failure. They also claim that the self-enhancing bias can be explained by cognitive factors without recourse to motivational explanations. For example,we are more likely to make self-attributions for expected than unexpected outcomes, and most of us expect to succeed rather than fail. Even so, it is difficult to argue against the motivational hypothesis, and the prevailing consensus is that both motivational and cognitive factors have a part in the self-serving bias (Ross & Fletcher, 1985). The motivation for self-enhancement is also linked to achievementattributions. According to Weiner’s (1985; 1986) attributional theory of motivation and emotion, the attributions people make for success and failure elicit different emotional consequences, and are characterized by three underlying dimensions – locus, stability and control
The locus dimension refers to whether we attribute success and failure internally or externally. Consistent with the selfenhancement bias, we are more likely to feel happier and better about ourselves if we attribute our success internally (to factors such as ability and effort) rather than externally (to good luck or an easy task). In contrast, attributing failure internally is less likely to make us feel good about ourselves than attributing it externally.
The stability dimension refers to whether the cause is perceived as something fixed and stable (like personality or ability) or something changing and unstable (such as motivation or effort). The controllability dimension refers to whether we feel we have any control over the cause. The tendency to attribute negative outcomes and failure to internal, stable and uncontrollable causes is strongly associated with clinical depression and has been referred to as a depressive attributional style. The reformulated learned helplessness model of depression (Abramson et al., 1978) views this attributional style as directly causing depression. But others have argued that it is merely a symptom, reflecting the affective state of the depressed individual. Whether it is a cause or symptom, attributional retraining programmes (Försterling, 1985), in which people are taught to make more self-enhancing attributions, are widely accepted as an important therapeutic process for recovery from depression.
No comments:
Post a Comment