Academic literature on the topic 'Fundamental attribution error'

Researchers raise concerns that the diagnostic approach can create stigma and lead to clinical inferences that focus on dispositional characteristics at the expense of situational variables. From social cognitive theory to strict behavioral approaches there is broad agreement that situation is at least as important as disposition. The present study examined the clinical inferences of graduate student clinicians randomly presented a diagnosis (borderline PD) or no diagnosis and either randomly given context information or no context information before watching a videotaped clinical interaction of a fabricated client. Responses to a questionnaire assessing dispositional or situational attributions about the client’s behavior indicated a diagnosis of borderline personality disorder did not significantly increase dispositional attributions and did not significantly moderate the importance of contextual factors. A notable difference between the attributions made by psychodynamic and third wave behavioral respondents was observed. Conceptual and experimental limitations as well as future directions are discussed.

<p><!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:612.0pt 792.0pt; margin:70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt; mso-header-margin:36.0pt; mso-footer-margin:36.0pt; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --><p>Människan har en tydlig tendens att begå det fundamentala attributionsfelet, det vill säga överskatta personlighetsbundna faktorer vid förklarandet av andras beteende. Den aktuella undersökningen genomfördes på en högskola i Mellansverige. Deltagarna fick besvara en enkät utformad i sex olika varianter där betingelserna beteende och person manipulerades. Den aktuella studien visade att fundamentala attributionsfelet till en viss del påverkas av relationer och typ av beteende. En person som utför ett positivt beteende skattas som vänligare och snällare än en person som utför ett negativt beteende. Likaså skattas en väns personlighet som vänligare än en ej omtyckt bekants och en främlings personlighet. Dessa resultat väcker intresset för ytterligare studier om hur relationer påverkar människans uppfattning om individen i andra situationer.</p></p>

Constituents in the judicial process such as jurors and lawyers who often play a critical role in the aftermath of an alleged financial reporting fraud have largely been ignored in the accounting literature. Literature in psychology suggests that both laypeople and highly trained professionals frequently over-attribute causality of an observed behavior to the disposition of the person performing that behavior. In doing so, these individuals underestimate the power of situations and fail to recognize important environmental factors that lead to a particular behavior. Within the context of fraudulent financial reporting, there is little understanding of how jurors and lawyers initially perceive and react to fraudulent behavior. Consequently, it is possible jurors and lawyers who are asked to evaluate the causality of a suspected fraudulent event, are inaccurate in their assessment of the causality of that event. This study addresses the question of whether or not the various constituents in the judicial process are biased in their attributions when evaluating causal factors related to financial reporting decisions. More specifically, it focuses on how individuals outside the profession of accounting, laymen jurors and corporate lawyers, make attributions when observing decisions related to fraudulent financial reporting, and whether or not these attributions differ from those made by corporate accountants. Further, after identifying differences in attributions, this study attempts to determine the causes of these differences; and whether recent changes in business culture have been effective in curbing financial reporting fraud. The late 1990s and early 2000s saw a proliferation of high profile financial reporting frauds, and as a result, numerous changes have been made within the regulatory environment governing financial reporting. Many of these changes targeted overall business culture and a commitment to ethical financial reporting. By studying the attributions of corporate accountants we learn about their perceptions of the current environment and better understand their willingness to report something in a manner that would constitute financial reporting fraud. Evidence demonstrates that laymen, corporate lawyers, and corporate accountants differ in their attributions and that laymen are typically more biased when observing individuals and their financial reporting decisions. Laymen are also shown to lack awareness of recent changes in the financial reporting environment, have unrealistic expectations of the likelihood accountants are willing to intentionally misreport something, and are not as good at identifying appropriate and inappropriate financial reporting behaviors. Results also suggest recent changes in business culture and governance around financial reporting have been effective in convincing corporate accountants that environmental factors should not lead to, and are not a viable excuse for, fraudulent financial reporting.<br>Ph. D.