The DOI matches its Crossref record; 18 of the 18 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The actor-observer asymmetry in attribution: A (surprising) meta-analysis.
Abstract
The actor-observer hypothesis (E. E. Jones & R. E. Nisbett, 1971) states that people tend to explain their own behavior with situation causes and other people's behavior with person causes. Widely known in psychology, this asymmetry has been described as robust, firmly established, and pervasive. However, a meta-analysis on 173 published studies revealed average effect sizes from d = -0.016 to d = 0.095. A moderator analysis showed that the asymmetry held only when the actor was portrayed as highly idiosyncratic, when hypothetical events were explained, when actor and observer were intimates, or when free-response explanations were coded. In addition, the asymmetry held for negative events, but a reverse asymmetry held for positive events. This valence effect may indicate a self-serving pattern in attribution, but across valence, no actor-observer asymmetry exists.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results.
Rosenthal, R. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638 · Cited by 9,068
Illusion and well‐being: A social psychological perspective on mental health
Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.103.2.193 · Cited by 7,814
Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (2015) · doi:10.4135/9781483398105 · Cited by 5,542
From acts to dispositions the attribution process in person perception
Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60107-0 · Cited by 3,424
Fixed-and random-effects models in meta-analysis.
Hedges, L. V., & Vevea, J. L. (1998) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.3.4.486 · Cited by 2,977
A Nonparametric “Trim and Fill” Method of Accounting for Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis
Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.2000.10473905 · Cited by 2,955
Morris, S. B., & DeShon, R. P. (2002) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.7.1.105 · Cited by 2,502
The totalitarian ego: Fabrication and revision of personal history.
Greenwald, A. G. (1980) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.35.7.603 · Cited by 1,942
Gilbert, D. T., & Malone, P. S. (1995) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.1.21 · Cited by 1,897
Jones, E. E., & Harris, V. A. (1967) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/0022-1031(67)90034-0 · Cited by 1,783
Meta-analysis of experiments with matched groups or repeated measures designs
Dunlap, W. P., Cortina, J. M., Vaslow, J. B., & Burke, M. J. (1996) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.1.2.170 · Cited by 1,693 · cited 3×
“Second, because F or t values do benefit from this within-subject correlation , effect size calculations based on F or t values have to be adjusted for the within-subject correlation, here, r A*O . d ϭ t paired ͱ2͑1 Ϫ r A*O ͒/N ͑Dunlap et al., 1996, p. 171, Equation 3͒.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialOne Hundred Years of Social Psychology Quantitatively Described
Richard, F. D., Bond, C. F., & Stokes-Zoota, J. J. (2003) · Review of General Psychology · doi:10.1037/1089-2680.7.4.331 · Cited by 1,558
Negativity and extremity biases in impression formation: A review of explanations.
Skowronski, J. J., & Carlston, D. E. (1989) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.105.1.131 · Cited by 1,550 · cited 2×
“Second, there is strong evidence for a pervasive negativity bias in social judgment and self-regulation (Skowronski & Carlston, 1989; Taylor, 1991), which leads people to attend to and be more influenced by negative stimuli than positive stimuli.”
BackgroundConsequences of prejudice against the null hypothesis.
Greenwald, A. G. (1975) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0076157 · Cited by 1,022 · cited 1×
“It is commonly assumed that studies that contradict an established hypothesis or support it only weakly and without significance are less likely to be published than studies that support the established hypothesis (Begg & Berlin, 1988; Coursol & Wagner, 1986; Greenwald, 1975; Hedges, 1984).”
ResultA schematic model of dispositional attribution in interpersonal perception.
Reeder, G. D., & Brewer, M. B. (1979) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.86.1.61 · Cited by 723
How People Explain Behavior: A New Theoretical Framework
Malle, B. F. (1999) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0301_2 · Cited by 538
Self-citationDoes psi exist? Replicable evidence for an anomalous process of information transfer.
Bem, D. J., & Honorton, C. (1994) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.115.1.4 · Cited by 330
Hedges, L. V. (1984) · Journal of Educational Statistics · doi:10.3102/10769986009001061 · Cited by 241
Cited by
The dynamics of proactivity at work
Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008) · Research in Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.riob.2008.04.002 · Cited by 2,057
Who knows what about a person? The self–other knowledge asymmetry (SOKA) model.
Vazire, S. (2010) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0017908 · Cited by 1,080
Chater, N., & Loewenstein, G. (2023) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x22002023 · Cited by 710
Communal and Agentic Content in Social Cognition
Abele, A. E., & Wojciszke, B. (2014) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-800284-1.00004-7 · Cited by 669
Alfano, M. (2013) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139208536 · Cited by 356
Metadata
- Authors
- Malle, B. F.
- Venue
- Psychological Bulletin
- Published
- 2006-11
- Volume
- 132
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 895-919
- ISSN
- 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1455
- OpenAlex
- W1973299518
- Cited by
- 450
- References
- 18
- FWCI
- 32.28
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
