View Item 

Show simple item record

Situational Salience and Cultural Differences in the Correspondence Bias and Actor-Observer Bias

dc.contributor.authorChoi, Incheolen_US
dc.contributor.authorNisbett, Richard E.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2010-04-14T13:34:36Z
dc.date.available2010-04-14T13:34:36Z
dc.date.issued1998en_US
dc.identifier.citationChoi, Incheol; Nisbett, Richard (1998). "Situational Salience and Cultural Differences in the Correspondence Bias and Actor-Observer Bias." Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 24(9): 949-960. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/68364>en_US
dc.identifier.issn0146-1672en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/68364
dc.description.abstractTwo studies examined the correspondence bias in attitude attributions of Koreans and Americans. Study I employed the classic attitude attribution paradigm of Jones and Harris and found that both Korean and American participants displayed the correspondence bias in the no-choice condition. This lack of difference might have been due to weak salience of the situational constraints. Study 2 was designed to make the situational constraints of the no-choice condition salient in two ways: (a) by asking participants to write an essay on a topic regardless of their genuine attitude toward the topic or (b) by also making it clear to participants that the essay by the target person was almost a copy of the arguments provided by the experimenter. The results showed that (a) American attributions were unaffected by the two salience manipulations, whereas Koreans' correspondence bias decreased with increasing salience of the constraints, and (b) Koreans were less susceptible to the actor observer bias.en_US
dc.format.extent3108 bytes
dc.format.extent2404890 bytes
dc.format.mimetypetext/plain
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.publisherSage Publicationsen_US
dc.titleSituational Salience and Cultural Differences in the Correspondence Bias and Actor-Observer Biasen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelPsychologyen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelSocial Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumUniversity of Michigan, incheol@s.psych.uinc.eduen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumUniversity of Michiganen_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/68364/2/10.1177_0146167298249003.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1177/0146167298249003en_US
dc.identifier.sourcePersonality and Social Psychology Bulletinen_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAmbady, N., Koo, J., Lee, F., & Rosenthal, R.(1996). More than words: Linguistic and nonlinguistic politeness in two cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 996-1011.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAronson, E., Wilson, T. D., & Akert, R. M. (1994). Social psychology: The heart and the mind. New York: Harper Collins.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBrislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1, 185-216.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCha, J:H., & Nam, K. D. (1985). A test of Kelley's cube theory of attribution: A cross-cultural replication of Mc Arthur's study. Korean Social Science Journal12, 151-180.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChoi, I., Choi, K. W., & Cha, J:H. (1992). A cross-cultural replication of the Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) study. Unpublished manuscript, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChoi, I., & Nisbett, R. E., (1998). Implicit theories and causal attribution East and West. Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCousins, S. D. (1989). Culture and self-perception in Japan and the U. S. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 124-131.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDarley, J. M., & Batson, C. D. (1973). From Jerusalem to Jericho: A study of situational and dispositional variables in helping behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27, 100-119.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDweck, C. S., Hong, Y-Y., & Chiu, CY. (1993). Implicit theories: Individual differences in the likelihood and meaning of dispositional inference. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 644-656.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFestinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58, 203-211.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFiske, A. P., Kitayama, S., Markus, H. R, & Nisbett, R. E. (in press). The cultural matrix of social psychology. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Linzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (4th ed.). Boston: Mc Graw-Hill.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition. Boston: Mc Graw-Hill.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGilbert, D. T., & Malone, P. S. (1995). The correspondence bias. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 21-38.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHilton, D. J., & Slugoski, B. R. (1986). Knowledge based attribution: The abnormal conditions focus model. Psychological Review, 93, 75-88.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHiniker, P. J. (1969). Chinese reactions to forced compliance: Dissonance reduction or national character. Journal of Social Psychology, 77, 157-176.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJones, E. E. (1979). The rocky road from acts to dispositions. American Psychologist, 34, 107-117.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965). From acts to dispositions: The attribution process in person perception. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 219-266.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJones, E. E., & Harris, V. A. (1967). The attribution of attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 3, 1-24en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJones, E. E., & Nisbett, R. E. (1972). The actor and the observer: Divergent perceptions of the causes of behavior. In E. E. Jones, D. E. Kanouse, H. H. Kelley, R. E. Nisbett, S. Valins, & B. Weiner (Eds.) Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior (pp. 79-94). Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJones, E. E., Worchel, S., Goethals, G. R, & Grumet,J. F. (1971). Prior expectancy and behavioral extremity as determinants of attitude attribution. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7, 59-80.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKrull, D. S., Loy, M., Lin,J., Wang, C:F., Chen, S., & Zhao, X. (1996). The fundamental attribution error: Correspondence bias in independent and interdependent cultures. Unpublished manuscript, University of Missouri-Columbia.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKunda, Z., & Nisbett, R. E. (1986). The psychometrics of everyday life. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 195-224.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLatane, B., & Darley, J. M. (1968). Group inhibition of bystander intervention in emergencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10, 215-221.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLee, F., Hallahan, M., & Herzog, T. (1996). Explaining real life events: How culture and domain shape attributions. Personality and Social a Psychology Bulletin, 22, 732-741.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLeyens, J:P., Yzerbyt, V., & Corneille, O. (1996). The role of applicability in the emergence of the over attribution error. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 219-229.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLloyd, G.E.R. (1990). Demnystifying mentalities. New York: Cambridge University Press.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMarkus, H. R, & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMasuda, T., & Kitayama, S. (1998). Correspondence bias in Japan. Unpublished manuscript, Kyoto University, Japan.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMc Arthur, L. Z. (1972). The how and what of why: Some determinants and consequences of causal attribution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 733-742.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMilgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371-378.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMiller, J. G. (1984). Culture and the development of everyday social explanation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 961-978.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMiller, A. G., Schmidt, D., Meyer, C., & Colella, A. (1984). The perceived value of constrained behavior: Pressures toward biased inferences in the attitude attribution paradigm. Social Psychology Quarterly, 47, 160-171.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMorris, M. W., & Larrick, R. P. (1996). When one cause casts doubt on another: A normative analysis of discounting in causal attribution. Psychological Review, 102, 331-355.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMorris, M. W., Nisbett, R. E., & Peng, K. (1993). Causal understanding across domains and cultures. In D. Sperber, D. Premack, & A. J. Premack (Eds.), Causal cognition: A multidisciplinary debate. Oxford, UK. Oxford University Press.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMorris, M. W., & Peng, K. (1994). Culture and cause: American and Chinese attributions for social and physical events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 949-971en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNakamura, H. (1985). Ways of thinking of Eastern peoples. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. (Original work published 1964)en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNeedham, J. (1962). Science and civilization in China: Vo L 4. Physics and physical technology. Cambridge, UK. Cambridge University Press.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNewman, L. S. (1993). How individualist interpret behavior: Idiocentrism and spontaneous trait inference. Social Cognition, 11, 243-269.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNewton, E., Griffin, D. W., & Ross, L. (1988). Actual versus estimated impact of persona and situation in determining pro-social behavior. Unpublished manuscript, Stanford University, Stanford, California.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNisbett, R. E., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 8, 231-259.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNorenzayan, A., & Nisbett, R. E. (1998). Social inference east and west. Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePeng, K., & Nisbett, R. E. (1997). Cross cultural similarities and differences in the understanding of physical casualty. In M. Shield (Ed.), Proceedings of conference on culture and science. KY: Kentucky State University Press.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceReeder, G. D., Fletcher, G. J., & Kenneth, F. (1989). The role of observer's expectation in attitude attribution. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 168-188.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRhee, E., Uleman, J. S., Lee, H. K, & Roman, RJ. (1995). Spontaneous self-descriptions and ethnic identities in individualistic and collectivisitic cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 142-152.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRoss, L. (1977). The intuitive scientist and his shortcomings. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology Vol. 10 (pp. 174-221). New York: Academic Press.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRoss, L., & Nisbett, R. E. (1991). The person and the situation: Perspectives of social psychology. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSchwarz, N. (1994). Judgment in a social context: Biases, shortcomings, and the logic of conversation. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 26, 123-162.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceShweder, R. A., & Bourne, E.J. (1982). Does the concept of the person vary cross-culturally? In A. J. Marsella & G. White (Eds.), Cultural conceptions of mental health and therapy (pp. 97-137). Boston: Reidel.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSnyder, M., & Jones, E. E. (1974). Attitude attribution when behavior is constrained. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 585-600.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWright, E. F., & Wells, G. L. (1988). Is the attitude attribution paradigm suitable for investigating the dispositional bias?Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14, 183-190.en_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Name:
10.1177_0146167298249003.pdf
Size:
2.293MB
Format:
PDF
View/Open

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.