Talk:Fundamental attribution error/Archives/2018

Lede was difficult to understand
I edited the lede to make it remotely comprehensible. I hope I got it right. It could be much improved. 178.39.122.125 (talk) 10:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC) I agree that it could be more simple - it could just say that people over-estimate dispositional factors in interpreting the behaviour of others. Vorbee (talk) 17:02, 19 October 2017 (UTC) I found the lede still confusing and unclear. The circumlocution ", in contrast to interpretations of their own behavior" leads the reader away from anything that might be considered definitional and introduces a side-topic. The term "(unduly)" doesn't appear to deserve parenthetical status. 24.165.181.87 (talk) 09:33, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Meta-analysis
By my reading, Malle's meta-analysis doesn't actually relate to the fundamental attribution error, but rather to actor-observer asymmetry. To quote from the paper:

"A final caveat is that the actor–observer hypothesis should be distinguished from the so-called correspondence bias (Gilbert & Malone, 1995; Jones, 1976), also labeled the fundamental attribution error (FAE; L. Ross, 1977). The latter normally refers to the claim that people are prone to infer stable traits from behaviors, even from single behaviors and even when external pressures or incentives operating on the behavior are made clear." (Malle, 2006, p. 896)

Malle also discusses the distinction between the two toward the end of the paper; clearly, he is of the opinion that they are not synonymous. To that end, two questions: 1. Is Malle's meta-analysis really relevant to this page? 2. Is this entry on the fundamental attribution error a mischaracterisation of the phenomenon (a fundamental attribution error error, one might say)?

(I have never edited Wikipedia or contributed to a talk page before, so apologies if I am not following protocol in some way here.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.208.226.13 (talk) 08:11, 16 October 2018 (UTC)