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 Actor-Observer 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 one’s 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
participant’s 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 therapist’s 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 --• Setting of library alarm
• Forgot to bring gift at party
• Seen with cheap store bag
Why 3rd party ratings?
Ratings (predictions) provided
by:
Self (actors)
Observers
3rd party ratings
Rule out possibility of a self-presentation bias
Table 1
Mean Composite Index Ratings of Respondents in Scenarios 1, 2, and 3
Scenario
Actors’
prediction
Observers’
rating
3rd-person
prediction
1. Library incident
4.78
3.01
3.89
2. Empty-handed guest
5.26
2.47
3.35
3. Spotted at the mall
3.31
1.13
1.94
What do the scores in the above table indicate?
Overestimating Harshness Studies (cont.)
Study 2:
• Getting acquainted exercise and performance on a anagram task
• Ratings on 12 traits before and after the anagram task
Findings?
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 lenient ones
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 wasn’t
• 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 harsher ratings
Overestimating Harshness Studies (cont.)
Study 4: Testing the role of 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 ratings
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? Is this common?
[High quality shopping bag (yes) 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