The positivity bias-the tendency to make internal attributions for others' successes and external attributions for others' failures-was examined in newspaper sports articles from the United States and Hong Kong. The positivity bias was observed in both cultures; however, the cultures manifested this bias differently. There was a greater emphasis on enhancing winners (making internal attributions for successes) in the United States and on protecting losers (making external attributions for failures) in Hong Kong. The concept of preserving others' face as a universal social motivation may provide an explanation for the cross-cultural consistency of the positivity bias. East-West differences in attributional tendencies and in the values of independence versus interdependence may explain cross-cultural differences in the expression of this bias.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ambady, N. , Koo, J., Lee., F., & Rosenthal, R. (1996). More than words: Linguistic and nonlinguistic politeness in two cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(5), 996-1011.
2.
Bettman, J. R. , & Weitz, B. A. (1983). Attributions in the board room: Causal reasoning in corporate annual reports. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 165-183.
3.
Bradley, G. (1978). Self-serving biases in the attribution process: A reexamination of the fact or fiction question. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 56-71.
4.
Brewer, M. (1979). Ingroup bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86(2), 307-324.
5.
Brown, P. , & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
6.
Brown, R. (1990). Politeness theory: Exemplar and exemplary. In E. Rock (Ed.), The legacy of Solomon Asch: Essays in cognition and social psychology. (pp. 23-38). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7.
Crittendon, K. (1991). Asian self-effacement or feminine modesty? Attributional patterns of women university students in Taiwan. Gender & Society, 5, 98-117.
8.
Fletcher, G. , & Ward, C. (1988). Attribution theory and processes: A cross-cultural perspective. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The cross-cultural challenge to social psychology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
9.
Goffman, E. , (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face to face behavior. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
10.
Grove, R. , Hanrahan, S., & McInman, A. (1991). Success/failure in attributions across involvement categories in sports. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(1), 93-97.
11.
Guilford, J. P. (1954). Psychometric measures. New York: McGraw-Hill.
12.
Holtgraves, T. , & Yang, J. (1990). Politeness as universal: Cross-cultural perceptions of request strategies and inferences based on their use. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59,719-729.
13.
Holtgraves, T. , & Yang, J. (1992). Interpersonal underpinnings of request strategies: General principles and differences due to culture and gender. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 246-256.
14.
Jones, E. , & Pittman, T. (1982). Toward a general theory of strategic self-presentation. In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self. (pp. 231-262). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
15.
Kelley, H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 15, 192-240.
16.
Koo, J. (1995). Politeness theory: Universality and specificity. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University.
17.
Lau, R. , & Russell, D. (1980). Attributions in the sports pages: A field test of some current hypotheses in attribution research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 29-38.
18.
Lee, F. (1993). Being polite and keeping MUM: How bad news is communicated in organizational hierarchies. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 1124-1149.
19.
Lee, F. , Hallahan, M., & Herzog, T. (1996). Explaining real life events: How culture and domain shape attributions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(7), 732-741.
20.
Lee, F. , & Robinson, R. (August, 1996). Attribution theory and the effectiveness of social accounts. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Conference, Cincinnati, OH.
21.
Mark, M. , Mutrie, N., Brooks, D., & Harris, D. (1984). Causal attributions of wins and losses in individual competitive sports: Toward a reformulation of the self-serving bias. Journal of Sports Psychology, 6(2), 184-196.
22.
Markus, H. R. , & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.
23.
Miller, J. (1984). Culture and the development of everyday social explanations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 961-978.
24.
Miller, J. (1986). Early cross-cultural commonalities in social explanation. Developmental Psychology, 22, 514-520.
25.
Morris, M. W. , & Peng, K. (1994). Culture and cause: American and Chinese attributions for social and physical events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 949-971.
26.
Peterson, C. (1980). Attributions in the sports pages: An archival investigation of the covariation hypothesis. Social Psychology Quarterly, 43(1), 136-141.
27.
Rosenthal, R. , & Rosnow, R. (1985). Contrast analysis: Focused comparisons in the analysis of variance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
28.
Ross, M. , & Sicoly, F. (1979). Ego-centric biases in availability and attribution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(3), 322-336.
29.
Salancik, G. , & Meindl, J. (1984). Corporate attributions as strategic illusions of management control. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 238-254.
30.
Scanlan, T. , & Passer, M. (1982). Self-serving bias in competitive sports settings: An attributional dilemma. Journal of Sports Psychology, 2(2), 124-136.
31.
Schuster, B. , Fosterling, F, & Weiner, B. (1989). Perceiving the causes of success and failure: A cross-cultural explanation of attributional concepts. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 20, 191-213.
32.
Sears, D. O. (1983). The person-positivity bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 233-250.
33.
Shweder, R. , & Bourne, E. (1984). Does the concept of person vary cross-culturally? In R. A. Shweder & R. A. Levine (Eds.), Culture theory: Essays on mind, self and emotion. (pp. 159-199). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
34.
Smith, S. , & Whitehead, G. (1984). Attributions for promotion and demotion in the United States and India. Journal of Social Psychology, 124, 27-34.
35.
Smith, S. , Whitehead, G., & Sussman, N. (1990). The positivity bias in attributions: Two cross-cultural investigations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 21, 283-301.
36.
Smith-Hefner, N. (1988). Women and politeness: The Javanese example. Language in Society, 17, 535-554.
37.
Staw, B. , McKechie, P., & Puffer, S. (1983). The justification of organizational performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 582-600.
38.
Taylor, D. , & Jaggi, V. (1974). Ethnocentrism and causal attribution in a South Indian context. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 5, 162-171.
39.
Taylor, S. , & Koivumaki, J. (1976). The perception of self and others: Acquaintanceship, affect, and actor-observer differences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 403-408.
40.
Tesser, A. , & Rosen, S. (1975). The reluctance to transmit bad news. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 8, 192-232.
41.
Walker, H. M. , & Lev, J. (1953). Statistical inference. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
42.
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92, 548-573.
43.
Zaccaro, S. , Peterson, C., & Walker, S. (1987). Self-serving attributions for individual and group performance. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50(3), 257-263.
44.
Zuckerman, M. (1979). Attribution of success and failure revisited: Or the motivational bias is alive and well in attribution theory. Journal of Personality, 47(2), 245-287.
45.
Zullow, H. M. , Oettingen, G., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M.E.P. (1988). Pessimistic explanatory style in the historical record: CAVing LBJ, presidential candidates, and East versus West Berlin. American Psychologist, 43, 673-682.
