--- name: fundamental-attribution-error description: "Activate when: someone says 'they're just like that,' an employee is being blamed for underperformance without examining their situation, a post-mortem is focusing on who screwed up, customer churn is being written off as 'not the right fit,' or someone asks 'why did they do that?' with a character-based answer. Do NOT activate when: the behavior forms a documented pattern across many genuinely different situations (dispositional inference is warranted); situational analysis is being used as a shield to excuse behavior that warrants accountability." --- # Fundamental Attribution Error ## Overview The **fundamental attribution error (FAE)** is the systematic tendency to over-weight character factors and under-weight situational factors when explaining others' behavior — while reversing this for your own behavior (actor-observer asymmetry). Coined by Lee Ross (1977), grounded in Jones & Harris's 1967 Castro study. The bias is automatic (System 1); situational correction requires deliberate effort (System 2). Composes with [`hanlons-razor`](../hanlons-razor/SKILL.md), [`survivorship-bias`](../survivorship-bias/SKILL.md), [`critical-thinking`](../critical-thinking/SKILL.md), [`dual-system-thinking`](../dual-system-thinking/SKILL.md), [`narrative-fallacy`](../narrative-fallacy/SKILL.md). ## When to Use - Diagnosing why an employee is underperforming - Analyzing customer churn - Conducting post-mortems on outages, accidents, or failures - Mediating interpersonal conflict - Designing products and observing user behavior - Performance reviews, evaluations, competitor behavior analysis - Someone says "fundamental attribution error," "actor-observer," or "what situation made this rational" **Not when:** behavior shows a documented pattern across many distinct situations; situational framing is being used to avoid accountability. ## Coaching Novices (Adaptive Front Door) - **Engine mode:** user has a specific judgment to test for FAE → run The Process directly. - **Coach mode:** user is unfamiliar or has no concrete case → guide step by step. In Coach mode, respond one step at a time. Each [WAIT] is a hard stop — output only that step's question, then stop. 1. One-line: before concluding someone behaved a certain way because of who they are, ask what situation would make the behavior rational — that's the FAE counter-move. 2. Check fit: if the same person behaves the same way across many *distinct* situations, dispositional inference is stronger. Single-situation explanations are FAE-prone. 3. Elicit the specific judgment. Who's the person? What's the behavior? What explanation is being offered? > **[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]** 4. One question at a time: is the explanation dispositional? What's the situational alternative? If I were in that situation, would I have behaved differently? > **[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]** 5. Close: balanced analysis with both dispositional and situational factors + which is doing the explanatory work. > **[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]** ## The Process **1. State the judgment** — person, behavior, current explanation, decision dependent on it. **2. Categorize** — dispositional (character/ability) vs. situational (context/constraints/incentives). If purely dispositional, FAE is likely. **3. Generate situational alternative** — what situation would make this behavior rational? What would I do there? What does a situated expert think? **4. Actor-observer test** — if I did this, what would I attribute it to? If situational for me, why dispositional for them? Name the asymmetry. **5. Synthesize** — estimate dispositional vs. situational % contribution; identify what intervention each implies; compare cost and probability of success. **6. Decide with calibrated attribution** — document the mix, set a re-evaluation point (e.g., 90 days after situational changes); if behavior persists, dispositional inference gains credibility. ## Output: FAE Audit ``` FAE Audit: Judgment: Person / Behavior / Current explanation / Decision Explanation: Dispositional: / Situational: Situational alternative: What situation would make this rational / What I would do / Expert view Actor-observer test: If I did this I'd attribute to: / Asymmetry revealed: Balanced: Dispositional (%) / Situational (%) / Intervention implications Decision: Decision / Justification / Re-evaluation point ``` *→ Method in Action: [Jones-Harris 1967 Castro Study + Ross 1977 Synthesis + Modern Applications](examples/jones-harris-1967-castro-study-ross-1977-synthesis-modern-applications.md)* ## Pack: FAE Application Patterns | Domain | Common FAE attribution | Situational alternative | |---|---|---| | Employee underperformance | "Lacks drive / skill" | Resource constraints, unclear expectations, role-fit | | Customer churn | "Wasn't really a good fit" | Onboarding gaps, support failures, product-fit issues we caused | | Outage / mistake | "X person made a bad call" | System design encouraged the error; time pressure | | User abandoning product | "They didn't understand it" | UX is confusing; constraints we don't see | ## Applying It Well FAE is automatic (System 1); correction is effortful (System 2). Build situational analysis into processes structurally — rubrics, blameless post-mortems, structured customer interviews. Use actor-observer asymmetry as a real-time diagnostic. Balanced attribution (both factors) produces better interventions than pure dispositional or pure situational reasoning. *→ Primary sources: [references/sources.md](references/sources.md)* ## Common Rationalizations **[D] = designed upfront | [O] = observed in real use. [O] entries are more valuable.** | Fake move | Reality | |---|---| | [D] "I know them; this is who they are" | The most-knowing observers still commit FAE. Knowledge doesn't immunize. | | [D] "I've seen them do this many times" | Often "many times" is the same situation recurring — not cross-situational evidence. | | [D] "I just have good intuition for people" | Intuition for people is heavily FAE-laden. Trust calibrated track record, not intuition. | | [D] "Situational factors are excuses" | Sometimes. Often they're the actual causes. The question is which is which. | | [D] "If situation were the issue, others would behave the same" | Often they do — you're already explaining them situationally and this person dispositionally (asymmetry). | | [D] "We need to hold people accountable" | Yes — but for what they can control. Accountability for situational factors is unfair and ineffective. | | [D] "I was in that situation and I behaved differently" | Were you actually in the same situation? Salience differences often differ between actors. | | [D] "The pattern is too clear to be situational" | Then specify the pattern across multiple *distinct* situations. Often it's one situation observed many times. | | [D] "Asking 'what situation made this rational' lets bad behavior off the hook" | No. It helps diagnose accurately so the response is calibrated. | | [D] "I'm not biased; I'm just being honest" | The bias-blind-spot is real (Pronin et al. 2002). Self-perception of unbias correlates poorly with measured bias. | | *→ Add [O] entries here after each real use — paste the actual failure pattern* | *What went wrong and why* | ## Red Flags - Explanation is dispositional with no situational analysis - "They are X" rather than "they did X because Y" - Same behavior explained dispositionally for others, situationally for self - Firing/coaching decision made without examining situational factors - Post-mortem is blame-driven; churn attributed to customer character without examining product/onboarding ## Verification - [ ] Dispositional explanation explicitly stated; situational alternative generated - [ ] Actor-observer asymmetry checked - [ ] Balanced explanation (both factors) considered; interventions weighed - [ ] If dispositional: pattern verified across multiple *distinct* situations - [ ] Re-evaluation point scheduled --- *Part of **deciqAI Knowledge Skills** — 225 open-source thinking skills that make rigor executable for AI agents. The same skills power every deciqAI agent, which runs them autonomously to operate your company. **See it run → https://www.deciqai.com/s/fundamental-attribution-error** · Built by deciqAI · github.com/deciqAI · Contributions welcome.*