Cited by 393Social and Intergroup PsychologyCultural Differences and ValuesPsychology of Social Influence

Situational Salience and Cultural Differences in the Correspondence Bias and Actor-Observer Bias

Open access
Choi, Incheol, Nisbett, Richard E.·1998·Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

Abstract

Two studies examined the correspondence bias in attitude attributions of Koreans and Americans. Study I employed the classic attitude attribution paradigm of Jones and Harris and found that both Korean and American participants displayed the correspondence bias in the no-choice condition. This lack of difference might have been due to weak salience of the situational constraints. Study 2 was designed to make the situational constraints of the no-choice condition salient in two ways: (a) by asking participants to write an essay on a topic regardless of their genuine attitude toward the topic or (b) by also making it clear to participants that the essay by the target person was almost a copy of the arguments provided by the experimenter. The results showed that (a) American attributions were unaffected by the two salience manipulations, whereas Koreans' correspondence bias decreased with increasing salience of the constraints, and (b) Koreans were less susceptible to the actor observer bias.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0146167298249003

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Indian and East Asian participants are more likely to attribute circumstances to the situation rather than the person.

    “Participants from the United States tend to be more willing to focus on internal explanations for all sorts of behaviours, including misfortune (Gilbert & Malone, 1995;Ross, 1977), whereas Indian and East Asian participants are more likely to attribute circumstances to the situation rather than the person (e.g.Choi & Nisbett, 1998;Miller, 1984;Miyamoto & Kitayama, 2002;Morris & Peng, 1994;Norenz”

    From Victim blaming and belief in karma (2024) · cites this paper as Choi & Nisbett, 1998

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
  2. Jones, E. E., Worchel, S., Goethals, G. R., & Grumet, J. F. (1971). Prior exptny o aen a a ae n baude attribution. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7, 59–80.
  3. McArthur, L. Z. (1972). The how and what of why: Some determinants and consequences of causal attribution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 733-742.
  4. Morris, M. W., Nisbett, R. E., & Peng, K. (1993). Causal understanding across domains and cultures. In D. Sperber, D. Premack, & A. J. Premack (Eds.), Causal cognition: A multidisciplinary debate. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  5. Needham, J. (1962). Science and civilization in Čhina: Vol. 4. Physics and physical technology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  6. Nakamura, H. (1985). Ways of thinking of Eastern peoples. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. (Original work published 1964)
  7. Peng, K, & Nisbett, R. E. (1997). Cross cultural similarities and differences in the understanding of physical casualty. In M. Shield (Ed.), Proceedings of conference on culture and science. KY: Kentucky State University Press.
  8. Reeder, G. D., Fletcher, G. J., & Kenneth, F. (1989). The role of observer's expectation in attitude attribution. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 168-188.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Choi, I., & Nisbett, R. E.
Affiliations
  • University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
  • University of Michigan (US)
Corresponding author
Choi, Incheol
Venue
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
Published
1998-09
Volume
24
Issue
9
Pages
949-960
ISSN
  • 0146-1672 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-7433
OpenAlex
W2085108029
Cited by
392
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 21
FWCI
42.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (publishedVersion)
  • Deep Blue (University of Michigan) (submittedVersion)
  • Seoul National University Open Repository (Seoul National University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Cultural Differences and Values
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Psychology of Social Influence
Keywords
correspondence bias, actor-observer bias, cultural differences, attitude attribution, Korean Americans, situational constraints, essay writing

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