Theory-based bias correction in dispositional inference: The fundamental attribution error is dead, long live the correspondence bias

By Bertram Gawronski. 2004

164 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Applied Psychology, Social Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/6e093027038bcaa0cdf314a6b2b91acd94aa12cc

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Applied Psychology

In Social Psychology

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

The social identity theory of leadership: Theoretical origins, research findings, and conceptual developments (2012, background): “As in other areas of social perception and inference, people are more likely to infer a correspondence between distinctive people’s behaviour and invariant underlying personality attributes or ‘‘essences’’ (e.g., Gawronski, 2004; Gilbert & Malone, 1995; Haslam, Bastian, & Bissett, 2004).”
Mindreading: Judgments About Intentionality and Motives in Dispositional Inference (2009, background): “Heider’s road map led researchers to jump pell-mell into ambitious programs of research on dispositional inference (Gawronski, 2004; Gilbert, 1998; Jones, 1979).”
baCk To The fUTUre of DissonanCe Theory: CogniTive ConsisTenCy as a Core moTive (2012, background): “This example demonstrates not only that the processes underlying correspondent dispositional inferences are much more complex and sophisticated than it is implied by the widespread assumption that people underestimate the role of situational factors (see Gawronski, 2004).”
Breaking rules for the right reasons? An investigation of pro-social rule breaking (2012, background): “Research on the correspondence bias (Gawronski, 2004; Gilbert & Malone, 1995; Jones, 1990) indicates that perceivers tend to draw correspondent dispositional inferences based on the behavior of others, even when situational factors are genuinely responsible for the behavior (Kunda, 2000).”
Gender and leadership emergence: A meta‐analysis and explanatory model (2018, background): “A fundamental tenet of this theory is that gender differences derive from the gendered division of labor within societies, which observers then attribute to intrinsic variations between men and women (Eagly & Steffen, 1984; Gawronski, 2004; Gilbert, 1998).”
The 3 C's of anthropomorphism: Connection, comprehension, and competition (2019, background): “When judging another human, people tend to assume that an un‐ derlying stable disposition (e.g., values, personality traits) drives that person's behavior (Gawronski, 2004).”
When Humanizing Brands Goes Wrong: The Detrimental Effect of Brand Anthropomorphization amid Product Wrongdoings (2013, background): “People have a fundamental tendency to attribute others’ behaviors to stable traits rather than to unstable contextual influences (Gawronski 2004); therefore, consumers may attribute product wrongdoings to stable traits of humanized brands and consider them responsible.”
Dual Process Th eories (2013, background): “In other words, they commit the correspondence bias, even though they do not commit the fundamental attribution error (see Gawronski, 2004).”
Biosocial Construction of Sex Differences and Similarities in Behavior (2012, unknown): “Driving the match between the division of labor and gender beliefs is an important principle of human judgment, known as correspondent inference, or the belief that others' external behavior corresponds with their internal characteristics (Gawronski, 2004; Gilbert, 1998).”