Attribution Error | Why We Misread Behavior (+ Writing Prompts)

Attribution error is what happens when, after something goes wrong or unexpectedly well, the explanation often becomes “this is what that person is like,” instead of “this is what they were dealing with in that moment.”

Here’s a common situation you’ve likely experienced (maybe even today):

You’re driving, and someone doesn’t signal, cuts you off, and then proceeds to brake harder than expected.

Your immediate explanation might be one of patience, but for many it’s:

“[Insert road rage comment here about them as a person here]”

That explanation feels obvious in part because the behavior is the most visible information available.

What you don’t have access to is what was going on on their side of the windshield.

There are always multiple possibilities: traffic might’ve suddenly slowed, their GPS could’ve gone off, maybe they just misjudged the space. The point isn’t to guess the “right” reason. It’s that you’re making a call about the person without knowing the full context.

The attribution error happens when behavior is explained primarily in terms of the person rather than the situation that may have shaped the behavior.

Today’s Field Note: Attribution Error

The tendency to explain behavior by over-emphasizing internal characteristics of the person (such as traits, intentions, or effort) while under-emphasizing external factors (such as situational demands or context).

The Mock Quiz

In one widely cited study, researchers created a simple quiz game. One person was randomly assigned to ask trivia questions. The other was assigned to answer them.

The setup here is important to the story.

The question asker wrote the questions from their own knowledge and the contestant had to respond on the spot. Observers knew the roles were assigned and that the structure favored the person asking the questions.

Even though observers understood the setup, they still rated the question asker more favorably. The person asking the questions appeared confident and capable and the person answering struggled.

As a result, greater knowledge was inferred from behavior that was largely shaped by the situation.

This is an attribution error in practice: behavior becomes a stand-in for character, while the context that shaped it is no longer factored into the explanation.

What happens when attribution error goes unchecked

When this pattern goes unchecked, explanations settle on the person instead of the conditions that produced the behavior.

People who benefit from structural advantages are seen as more capable, while those operating under harder conditions are seen as less competent.

Research shows that once an explanation settles on the person, people often continue to rely on it even when situational information is available. Early impressions quietly shape how everything else gets interpreted, even when circumstances change.

In work settings, this shows up in performance reviews, promotion decisions, and leadership assessments. People who operate with more visibility or better access to information are credited with ability, while those who don’t are judged as weaker performers.

In relationships, this pattern tends to unfold quietly. Small moments get interpreted as character. Missed connections start to carry meaning. Over time, isolated behaviors turn into a narrative about who someone is, and context becomes less of a question and more of an afterthought.

In both cases, the pattern leads to the same place. Energy goes into trying to change people instead of looking at what might need to change around them.

Writing prompts we use to work with attribution error

First, think of a specific situation where you found yourself explaining someone’s behavior. It might involve a conversation, a decision, a reaction, or an outcome where you quickly landed on a story about who someone is or why something happened.

Once you have that moment in mind, use the questions below to look more closely at how that explanation formed.

• What explanation feels most obvious to me right now about why this happened?

• What details about the moment are harder to remember than the outcome itself?

• If I had to offer two other plausible explanations that don’t rely on personality or effort, what might they be?

• What information about the situation, if I had it, would change how sure I am about the story I’m telling?

The purpose isn’t to arrive at a better story. It’s to notice how quickly one story took over.

References

Ross, L., Amabile, T. M., & Steinmetz, J. L. (1977). Social roles, social control, and biases in social-perception processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(7), 485–494.

Gilbert, D. T., & Malone, P. S. (1995). The correspondence bias. Psychological Bulletin, 117(1), 21–38.

Heider, F. (1958). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. Wiley.