Method:
170 participants were recruited. These were undergraduate Middlesex University psychology students. They were randomly picked
Materials:
The materials used were paper and pens. Also, participants were required to write ten general knowledge questions.
Design:
The independent variable is the role of the participants in the quiz game, there for it was a repeated measures design. The dependent variable is intelligence rating. It is measured on a 1-100 scale, considering that the average Middlesex University psychology student has an intelligence rate of 50.
Procedures:
170 undergraduate psychology students were randomly elected to be in groups of three. Each participant was given a role of, the observer, the contestant, or the questioner. The questioners were then asked to each write a set of ten general knowledge questions to which they knew the answers. Then the contestants were asked to answer these ten questions in the presence of both the observer and questioners. Then each participant was asked to rate the intelligence of both the contestant and questioners.
Results:
The results showed that there was a difference in both the contestant and observer’s judgment of the intelligence of the questioners. This was because the contestants were not rated as highly as the questioners by either the contestants themselves or the observers. Therefore the fundamental attribution error can be detected because both they have failed to see that all deck were set against the contestants. The test which was used was a repeated measures t-test. This is because the two means were compared.
The contestant’s ratings of the questioners are the following:
t (29)-0.21, se=3.39, 0.838<0.05)
The observer’s ratings of the questioners are the following:
t (29)1.88, se=2.66, 0.067<0.05)
Figure 1. Frequency distributions of the Contestants’ rated intelligence of the Questioners and the Contestants
Figure 2. Frequency distributions of the Observers’ rated intelligence of the Questioners and the Contestants
Discussion:
From the outcome of the experiment I recon that the results found that it supports the fundamental attribution error relating to the judgment of intelligence. Because both the contestant and the observers rated the questionnaires as being more intelligent than the contestant besides the situational factors placed against the contestant is evidence of the fundamental attributions error in action. Looking at the results most of the questionnaires were rated as having intelligence over 50 where the average intelligence is for the Middlesex University students was said to have an intelligence of 50, again supporting the fundamental attribution error.
As this experiment was partial replication of Lee Ross et al 1977 study where he randomly picked Stanford University students to make up general knowledge questions, which were hard but not impossible to answer, which was quite similar to our experiment. I can say that this experiment supported his experimental conduct and it’s finding considering the fundamental attribution error.
This was because, as with Ross et al’s experiment, the contestant’s intelligence was underestimated because of the lack of right answers and the fact that the questioner had obviously written questions they knew was disregarded.
Having said that with our experiment was slightly different but there were also some similarities to that of Ross et al’s 1977. One of the differences was that in our study there was an observer where as in Ross et al’s study did not have one. The results, however, conclude that the observer also attributes the contestant’s mistakes to internal factors rather than the external factors. I think that it was a good idea to have an observer this is because even the observer can fall into the mistake of the fundamental attribution error.
With Ross et al’s study it requires the questioner’s to answer their own question, whereas in the current study the questioners simply corrected the contestants.
This experiments goes to prove Jones and Harris (1967) study even though there was no similarities with his experiment and the one that we carried out it goes to support his view that people tend to judge based on internal factors rather than external factors. Both support the fundamental attribution theory.
Having said that in some occasions the fundamental attribution error can be weaker than usual. For example, Miller, Baer and Schonberg (1979), when referring to the essay experiment, have said that, “the essay writer can cause the effect to lessen if in the essay itself she mentions that she is writing without free choice.” (Reference 8, pg 163) “Or she can write an especially weak essay” (Miller, Ashton and Mishal, 1990).
References: Lab Report
- Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (vol. 10). New York: Academic Press.
- Social Psychology, exploring universals across cultures. Fathali m. mgheddem. George Town University. W.H. kremon and company. New York (1998)
-
Social psychology – John Sabini – 2nd edition – university of Pennsylvania .W.W. Norton and company, New York – London (1995)
- Advanced Social Psychology: Abraham Tesser, 1995, Library of Congress Cataloging in publication Data.
-
Social Psychology – Michael A. Hogg and Graham M. Vaughan – 3rd edition. Prentice Hall (2002)