We at PsychLaw.net teach that Attribution theory examines how we seek to explain people’s behavior[1]. We typically attribute the causes of behavior to internal events (the person’s personality) or external events (the situation in which people find themselves). When explaining their own behavior ‑ or the behavior of someone with whom they identify sympathetically people usually invoke considerations of external events. When assessing the behavior of others however, people characteristically rely on internal events. Asked why Americans defected to the Soviet Union, for example, 80% of a sample of American college students explained the defections on the basis of internal events or personality factors. The students described the defectors’ personalities as “confused, ungrateful, or traitorous.” When asked why Russians defected to the U.S., however, 90% of the students attributed those defections to the oppressive conditions of the Soviet Union[2].
More often than not, people prefer explaining the behavior of others in terms of their presumed dispositions or personality traits. Attribution bias, therefore, is defined as those circumstances in which “… a situation provides an adequate explanation for an individual’s behavior, but a dispositional attribution is made.”[3] The judgments of mental health professionals frequently reflect the effects of attribution bias. They commonly overestimate the influence of personality factors ‑ and underestimate the influence of situational factors ‑ when drawing conclusions about their patients’ behaviors.[4], [5]
At PsychLaw.net we consider, for example, a psychologist who suggested that a father involved in a child custody dispute misrepresented his credentials.
Attny: In what way does Mr. Smith’s professional credentialing impact on his parental effectiveness?
Psych: Well, I suppose it would have something to do with integrity and being truthful or a liar, and I think that probably would have far‑reaching implications as a parent.
In fact, however, research published in 1928 demonstrated that honesty corresponds to situational considerations[6]. People who are scrupulously honest in one situation, may be less than honest in another situation. Generalizing from how people represent their professional credentials, to how they function as parents, is ill‑advised because it commits the fundamental attribution error. This psychologist, however, neglected to consider the issue of attribution bias because she was unfamiliar with the concept.
Attny: Is it possible that you overestimated personality factors that you attributed to Mr. Smith?
Psych: I don’t know what you mean.
Attny: If I were to define attribution bias as occurring when a clinician mistakenly reaches a conclusion about an individual’s enduring personality traits on the basis of situationally determined behavior, would that jog your memory about attribution bias?
Psych: Not particularly.
Attny: All right. When you ascribe to Mr. Smith concern about moral behavior because of his possible misrepresentation of his credentials, isn’t that an example of you mistakenly reaching a conclusion about his enduring personality traits, based on situationally determined behavior?
Psych: No.
Clearly, however, this psychologist was quite mistaken in her position.
At PsychLaw.net we understand that mental health professionals who rely on Freudian theory are particularly inclined to exhibit attribution bias. In a 1977 study for example, mental health professionals watched a videotape of an actor portraying a patient reporting employment related problems. Compared to non‑Freudians, the Freudian professionals more often attributed the “patient’s” problems to personality factors. The Freudians also viewed this “patient” as more disturbed than the non‑Freudian professionals[7].
As with issues of “anchoring”, attribution bias is fertile ground for a rule 703 exposition. Rule 703 is primarily directed toward permitting an expert to base his opinion on hearsay or otherwise inadmissible sources. Nevertheless, a Rule 703 inquiry into the “types” of “facts and data” underlying an expert’s testimony, is not limited to the admissibility of that data. District judges may reject opinions founded on critical facts that are plainly untrustworthy, principally because such an opinion cannot aid the jury.[8]
Footnotes
[1]. Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.
[2]. Myers, D.G. (1993). Social psychology-4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. (p. 76).
[3]. Garb, H.N. (1998). Studying the clinician: Judgment research and psychological assessment. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association (p. 98).
[4]. Batson, C.D. & Marz, B. (1979). Dispositional bias in trained therapists’ diagnoses: Does it Exist? Journa of Applied Social Psychology, 9, 476-489.
[5]. Plous, S. & Zimbardo, P.G. (1986) Attributional biases among clinicians: A comparsion of psychoanalysts and behavior therapists. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45, 101-103.
[6]. Hartshorne, H. & May, M.A. (1928). Studies in deceit. New York: Macmillan.
[7]. Snyder, C.R. (1977). AA patient by any other name: revisited: Maladjustment or attributional locus of problem? Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45, 101-103.
[8]. See ie: Soden v. Freightliner Corp., 714 F.2d 498, 505 (5th Cir. 1983) (AThough courts have afforded experts a wide latitude in picking and choosing the sources on which to base opinions, Rule 703 nevertheless requires courts to examine the reliability of those sources”.) ; Head v. Lithonia Corp., 881 F.2d 941, 943 (10th Cir. 1989) (Rule 703 Aprovides a mechanism by which the court can evaluate the trustworthiness of the underlying data on which the expert relies.”); Shatkin v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 727 F.2d 202, 208 (2d Cir. 1984) (district judge had the discretionary right under Fed. R. Evid. 703 to determine whether the expert acted reasonably in making assumptions of fact upon which he would base his testimony”).