In previous studies, Jones and Harris found that persons who wrote a favorable or unfavorable essay about Fidel Castro were judged as holding attitudes that corresponded to the essay's position, even when they had been compelled to endorse the position. The present research tested the robustness of this correspondence bias. In Study 1, subjects read two essays about Castro that they believed were written 9 months apart by the same author under forced-choice conditions. The correspondence bias emerged in subjects' judgments of the author's attitudes toward Castro at the time each essay was composed. Essay writers who endorsed two opposite positions were judged to have undergone greater attitude change than writers who twice endorsed the same position. Study 2 demonstrated the effect with an interval as brief as 1 week between constrained behaviors. These data underscore the robustness of the correspondence bias.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Allison, S. T. , & Messick, D. M. (1985). The group attribution error. Journal of experimental Social Psychology, 21, 563-579.
2.
Allison, S. T. , Worth, L. T., & King, M. W. C. (1990). Group decisions as social inference heuristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 801-811.
3.
Berger, J. M. (1991). Changes in attributions over time: The ephemeral fundamental attribution error. Social Cognition, 9, 182-193.
4.
Crocker, J. , Hannah, D. B., & Weber, R. (1983). Person memory and causal attributions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 55-66.
5.
Fletcher, G. J. , & Ward, C. (1988). Attribution theory and processes: A cross. cultural challenge to social psychology (pp. 230-244). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
6.
Gilbert, D. T. , & Jones, E. E. (1986). Perceiver-induced constraint Interpretations of self-generated reality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 269-280.
7.
Gilbert, D. T. , McNulty, S. E., Giuliano, T. A., & Benson, J. E. (1992). Blurry words and fuzzy deeds: The attribution of obscure behavior. Journal of Prsonaty and Social Psychology, 62, 18-25.
8.
Gilbert, D. T. , Pelham, B. W., & Krull, D. S. (1988). On cognitive busyness: When person perceivers meet persons perceived. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 733-740.
9.
Hamilton, D. L. , Grubb, P. D., Acorn, D. A., Trolier, T. K., & Carpenter, S. (1990). Attribution difficulty and memory for attribution-relevant information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 891-898.
10.
Harvey, J. H. , Town, J. P., & Yarkin, K. L. (1981). How fundamental is "the fundamental attribution error"?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 346-349.
11.
Heider, R. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.
12.
Jones, E. E. (1979). The rocky road from acts to dispositions. American Psychologist, 34, 107-117.
13.
Jones, E. E. , & Harris, V. A. (1967). The attribution of attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 3, 1-24.
14.
Mackie, D. M. , & Allison, S. T. (1987). Group attribution errors and the illusion of group attitude change. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 23, 460-480.
15.
Mackie, D. M. , Allison, S. T., Worth, L. T., & Asuncion, A. G. (1992a). The generalization of outcome-biased counter stereotypic inferences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 43-64.
16.
Mackie, D. M. , Allison, S. T., Worth, L. T., & Asuncion, A. G. (1992b). The impact of outcome biases on counter stereotypic inferences about groups. Pesonaoiy and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 44-51.
17.
Mackie, D. M. , Worth, L. T., & Allison, S. T. (1990). Outcome-biased inferences and the perception of change in groups. Soda! Cognition8, 325-342.
18.
McArthur, L. Z. (1981). What grabs you? The role of attention in impression formation and causal attribution. In E. T. Higgins, C. P. Herman, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Social cognition The Ontario Symposium (Vol. 1, pp. 201-246). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
19.
McHoskey, J. W. , Miller, A. G., Stasser, G., & Sherman, R. (1992). The group attribution arm Effects of constraint level, perceived influence, and target group characteristics on attributions about group members. Unpublished manuscript, Miami University.
20.
Miller, A. G. (1976). Constraint and target effects in the attribution of attitudes. Journal of personality Social Psychology, 1Z, 325-339.
21.
Miller, A. G. , Ashton, B., & Mishal, M. (1990). Beliefs concerning the features of constrained behavior. A basis for the fundamental attribution error. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 635-650.
22.
Monson, T. C. , Keel, Ri., Stephens, D., & Genung, V. (1982). Trait attributions: Relative validity, covariation with behavior, and prospect of future interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 1014-1024.
23.
Nisbett, R E. , & Ross, L. (1980). Human influence Strategic and shortcomings in social judgments. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
24.
Quattrone, G. A. (1982). Over attribution and unit formation: When behavior engulfs the person. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 593-607.
25.
Silka, L. (1989). Intuitive judgments of change. New York: Springer-Verlag.
26.
Taylor, S. E. , & Fiske, S. T. (1975). Point-of-view and perceptions of causality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 439-445.
27.
Tetlock, P. E. (1985). Accountability: Asocial check on the fundamental attribution error. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48, 227-236.
28.
Trope, Y. , Cohen, O., & Maoz, Y. (1988). The perceptual and inferential effects of situational inducements on dispositional attributions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 165-177.
29.
Uyer, R. S., Jr. , & Srull, T. K. (1986). Human cognition in its social context. Psychological Review, 93, 322-359.
