What is the actor-observer effect?

Actor-Observer Effect: The tendency for actors to view their

own behavior as situationally caused and for observers to perceive
the behavior of actors as being due to their dispositions (e.g.,
ability, personality)

E.g., for observers: Acts (behaviors) = Dispositions

(personality/trait attributions)

What are the Reasons for the ActorObserver Effect?

Information access: Actors have more information about
themselves than do observers (e.g., how consistent present
behavior is to past behavior)
Perceptual differences: Actors notice the situations
around them that influence them to act, while observers notice
the actors
Motivational bias: Explanations for ones successes that
credit internal, dispositional factors, as opposed to failures,
which are explained by external, situational factors (e.g., bad
luck)
[Self-esteem maintenance; self-presentation reasons]

~ Reversing Actors and Observers

Perspectives ~
How was this accomplished?

~ Reversing Actors and Observers

Perspectives (cont.)~
Findings?
Reorientation had
a greater impact
on participants
view of
situational factors

~ Reversing Actors and Observers

Perspectives (cont.)~
Issues/Implications?
Increased appreciation of situational factors (observers)

Legal settings (e.g., court cases and mitigating factors)

Couples therapy

Role of a motivational bias in more emotionally-laden settings

Possible negative effects of self-observation (e.g. , greater stress
regarding alcoholics, depressive clients)

Issues/Implications (cont.)?
Danger of therapists dispositional views of clients (along with
the decreased situational attributions of self-viewed clients) --mutual underestimation of situational factors

Why were the dispositional evaluations not affected much?

~ Overestimating
Failure ~
What is the Spotlight Effect:

Perception of our behavior as sticking out

Others will attend to and notice our behavior as being different
(an outlier)

Lonely Guy Restaurant Scene

Overestimating Harshness Studies

Study 1:
3 scenarios with social
blunders ---

Ratings (predictions)
provided by:

Setting of library alarm

Self (actors)
Forgot to bring gift at
Observers
party
3rd party ratings
Seen with cheap store
bag
Why 3rd party
Rule out possibility of a self-presentation
ratings?
bias

Table 1
Mean Composite Index Ratings of Respondents in Scenarios 1,
2, and 3
Scenario
3rd-person

Actors

Observers

prediction

rating

1. Library incident
3.89

4.78

3.01

2. Empty-handed guest
3.35

5.26

2.47

prediction

What do the scores in the above table indicate?

3. Spotted at the mall
3.31
1.13
1.94

Overestimating Harshness Studies

(cont.)
Study 2:
Getting acquainted exercise and performance on a
anagram task
Ratings on 12 traits before and after the anagram
Findings?
task
Lower ratings =
more harsh views

Actors (solvers) expected to be rated more harshly by observers,

especially after their (poor) performance on the anagram task
Curiously, actors (solvers) expected to be rated harshly BEFORE they
performed the anagram task
Actors overestimated harsh thoughts by observers and underestimated

Overestimating Harshness Studies

(cont.)
Study 3 (Quiz Show paradigm):
Original Study by Ross -- Questioner (writes a set of 10 reasonably difficult
questions)
Contestant (has to answer the questions by the
questioner)

Told that this

assignment
was random;
it wasnt

Observers
Ross initial findings = Questioners were perceived as more
knowledgeable on a general knowledge test by contestants
and observers

Overestimating Harshness Studies

(cont.)
Study 3 (Quiz Show paradigm):
To test for role of the
Focusing
illusion?

People place greater weight on specific focal stimuli

and less weight to other non-focal factors (e.g.,
relevant situational ones) in making their predictions
about how others will rate them

Findings?

Defocused game show contestants believed they would be rated better by

questioners and observers
Those in control condition were overly focused on their poor performance -- expected

Overestimating Harshness Studies

Study 4: Testing the role of (cont.)
the amount of defocused
information
Findings?

Greater discrepancy
between actors
(targets) and observers
ratings when lots of
non-focal information
was provided (long
version).

Higher scores = more lenient

Some Issues to Consider

Do people hold a general cynical set of beliefs about the
behavior and
evaluations of others? [Enhances image of observers]
Would people overestimate the degree to which others would

rate them after a

successful
performance?
this common?
[High
quality shopping
bag (yes) Is
versus
good anagram performance
(No) ]

Is is of evolutionary value to overestimate the harsh

evaluation of others (e.g., to avoid being banished from the
group)
--- Significant diagnostic role of negative information in making
impressions
Implications of overly harsh judgments for actors?
Avoidance, limited choice of behaviors by actors (fear,
apprehension) regret issue