The psychology of blaming outsiders -- the relationship between self-serving attribution bias and overconfidence

In the third session, "Freud's Self-Regulation and Defense Mechanisms," we traced the unconscious structures that support overconfidence.projection -- the defense of transferring unacceptable elements within oneself to others -- is an independent tradition in social psychology. self-serving attribution bias It has been proven as such. This time we will deal with that.fritz heider (1896–1988)'s attribution theory;harold kelly (1921–2003) covariation model,dale miller and michael ross 's self-serving bias theory (1975),lee ross (1942–2021)'s fundamental attribution error,Ellen Langer (1947–) The illusion of control,Melvin Lerner (1929–)'s Just World Hypothesis, and Confucius's ``Genzis Seek All Self'' -- seven perspectives expressed in different words. Success is mine, failure is mine I have been referring to the universal tendency of humankind to attribute this. In this article, we will dissect how this distortion of attribution supports overconfidence, and chart the path to a method of observation.

01Why “external blame” supports overconfidence

The most subtle mechanism for maintaining overconfidence isWhen a failure occurs, the habit of attributing the cause to external factors rather than one's own judgment is. Even if you make a mistake in your judgment, as long as you say that the cause was ``the market moved unexpectedly,'' ``the client's instructions were unclear,'' or ``regulations suddenly changed,'' the framework of your judgment will remain intact. The next judgment can be continued as is. Overconfidence persists because we don't take the opportunity to question our own judgment.

This article deals with this habit of attribution. It is not a problem of individual personality, but a structural human tendency universally confirmed by social psychology. The proposition is that. The long-term knowledge of psychology in the second half of the 20th century has consistently shown that:People attribute success to their own abilities and failure to external factors.. This tendency appears regardless of level of education, expertise, or level of self-awareness, and cultural differences are also limited. This universal structure works in the same way in the field of material auditors.

"One of the most permanent distortions of human judgment is the tendency to attribute successes to internal, stable, and controllable factors and failures to external, unstable, and uncontrollable factors in events that concern us. This tendency is observed in almost all groups, and persists with high self-consciousness and professionalism." - From Bernard Weiner, An Attributional Theory of Motivation and Emotion (1986)

The structure of this episode is as follows. The first half (sections 2 to 7) traces the major discoveries of attribution theory, and the second half (sections 8 to 10) examines the Eastern etiquette of responsibility, four scenes in the pharmaceutical field, and four etiquettes for solving ``outside blame.'' Located between the psychology of overconfidence up to Part 3 and observation and practice from Part 5 onwards. hinge This is the time as.

02Heider's attribution theory: where do we attribute the cause of an action?

The Austrian psychologist introduced the concept of "attribution" to social psychology. fritz heider is. In his 1958 book, The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations, he Humans have an instinct to try to understand the causes of events. I made a proposition.

"We almost never accept the actions or events we observe as such. We always ask ``Why did something happen?'' and infer the cause. Inferring causes is the most basic function of human social cognition. And such inferences are systematically biased.'' - Fritz Heider, The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations (1958) Purpose

The most important distinction made by Heider is thatThe location of the two causes: person and environment It was. Every act isfactors within a person (ability, effort, character)? factors in the environment It can be attributed to either (situation, other people, or luck). This simple dichotomy would become the basis for attribution research over the next half century.

The implications for materials auditors are structural from the outset.When we reflect on the results of a decision, we unconsciously allocate the causes between "people" and "environment.". When the result is good, it's ``one's own ability,'' and when the result is bad, it's ``the difficulty of the environment.'' Although this allocation is experienced naturally by the individual, the allocation ratio itself may be distorted. This section provides a vocabulary for observing that distortion.

03Internal attribution vs. external attribution -- Kelley's covariation model

The American social psychologist who refined Heider's dichotomy was harold kelly is. In his 1967 paper ``Attribution theory in social psychology,'' he explained how people determine causes.covariation principle として定式化しました。

According to Kelley, we unconsciously compare three pieces of information to infer causes.consensus -- Would other people get the same result in the same situation?consistency --Will the same person get the same result in different situations?distinctness --Would a different situation result in a different result? A combination of the three determines the cause.

The implications of Kelley's model are profound in discussions of overconfidence.In the case of failure, people unconsciously preferentially gather information that supports external attributions.. ``Other people would have failed in the same situation,'' ``I am usually successful,'' and ``that scene was special.'' By emphasizing these three pieces of information, external attribution is logically established. But the information How to collect If the judgment itself is biased, the judgment will also be biased.

When you look back on a material review and say, ``That case was special,'' ``Other judges would have made the same decision,'' and ``I'm usually accurate,'' there is a possibility that Kelley's three pieces of information are being mobilized in self-defense.

04Self-serving bias: success is mine, failure is mine

The person who most directly demonstrated attribution distortion was an American social psychologist. dale miller and michael ross ``Self-serving biases in the attribution of causality'' published in Psychological Bulletin in 1975. They meta-analysed attribution studies from the past 25 years and came up with one robust finding.

``A systematic review of previous research has shown that people have a consistent tendency to attribute successes to internal factors (ability, effort) and failures to external factors (luck, circumstances, others). self-serving bias ``It has been confirmed on a scale worthy of being called ``-- Miller & Ross, ``Psychological Bulletin'' (1975)

Since 1975, this finding has been reconfirmed in thousands of studies. Whether interpreting academic results, winning or losing in sports, making business decisions, or evaluating medical outcomes, people tend to make internal attributions for good outcomes and external attributions for bad outcomes. Mezulis et al.'s (2004) comprehensive meta-analysis combined 266 studies and reaffirmed the extremely large effect size of self-serving bias.

It should be noted that this It's not conscious self-defense. That's it. For me, the attribution is experienced as a natural perception of reality. I feel that this case was actually special. I feel like I was actually unlucky. There is often a large disconnect between this feeling and the distortion of attribution seen from the outside.

The relationship between self-serving bias and overconfidence becomes clear here.The framework of one's judgment remains intact, and only the results are explained by special circumstances. Therefore, the framework of judgment is not updated. So overconfidence persists. In Part 6, “Why You Can't Learn from Your Failures,” we explore this structure in more depth.

05Fundamental Attribution Error - Other people are personalities, you are situations.

Self-serving bias was a distortion of attributions "about me."lee ross showed in his 1977 paper "The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings" Fundamental Attribution Error (FAE) is a distortion of attribution "about others".

"When humans observe the behavior of others, they tend to underestimate the power of the situation and over-attribute internal attributes such as personality, character, and ability. This tendency is so widely observed that it can be called a fundamental distortion of social judgment." -- From Lee Ross, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Volume 10 (1977)

FAE is a phenomenon that is difficult to understand in isolation. But when you combine it with self-serving bias, you get a complete picture of distortions in human attribution.Attributing the failures of others to character (lack of ability, character, ethics), and attributing one's own failures to circumstances (luck, others, environment). The same failure receives completely different attributions depending on the observer's position. This is actor-observer bias This phenomenon is also known as

FAE in contexts that support overconfidence operates in two stages. First, when we see mistakes in judgment in others, we attribute them to personality. I am different This feeling becomes stronger. Second, by attributing one's own judgment errors to the situation, one becomes less likely to question one's own decision-making framework. As a result,The perception that “I am a different and better judge than them” is reinforced from both directions.. According to Moore & Healy's three types Overplacement ── better-than-average effect ── の心理学的基盤の一部は、ここにあります。

06Illusion of control ── Langer's coin experiment

An American psychologist demonstrated another aspect of attribution distortion. Ellen Langer 's 1975 paper ``The illusion of control.'' Langer conducted a series of experiments in which people Even in purely coincidental events, I feel that my involvement influences the outcome. ことを示しました。

One of the classic experiments involved buying and selling lottery tickets. Participants purchase lottery tickets for $1. Then another participant says, ``I want to buy your lottery ticket,'' and you decide how much to sell it for. There are two conditions: if you choose the lottery number yourself, or if the lottery number is given to you by the staff. The results were clear.Participants who picked their own numbers demanded about four times as much as those who received them.. Even though the odds of winning are the same.

"The illusion of control is a phenomenon in which the expectation of a sense of personal control over events that are objectively chance exceeds the objective probability. Opportunity for choice, presence of competition, degree of involvement, familiarity with the outcome -- these situational factors strengthen the illusion." -- Purpose from Ellen Langer, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (1975)

Langer's subsequent research showed that the illusion of control operates not only in random events, but also in complex decision-making. In situations involving both ability and luck, people Too much attribution of results to ability Show trends. This is directly linked to overconfidence.

The practical implications of materials screening are profound. The outcome of a decision is not determined purely by your ability; the quality of the request, the quality of the information, the industry situation, regulatory trends, the actions of other teams, and the element of luck all have a bearing on the outcome. Over-attributing good results to one's own abilities is a modern manifestation of Langer's illusion of control.The feeling that “success is due to my decisions” often exceeds actual contribution.. This then manifests itself in the next decision as an over-confidence in one's abilities.

07The Just World Hypothesis -- Behind the scenes of "Effort will reward you"

American social psychologists have shown a deeper belief system that underpins self-serving bias. Melvin Lerner has been developed since 1965 Just-World Hypothesis This is a study of This hypothesis, codified in 1980's The Belief in a Just World, provides a key to understanding the social dimensions of overconfidence.

"Humans are strongly motivated to believe that the world they live in is an inherently just place. Good things happen to good people, bad things happen to bad people. Effort is rewarded, non-effort is rewarded - this belief is the foundation of emotional stability, and people systematically defend themselves against information that shakes it." - From Melvin Lerner's The Belief in a Just World (1980)

There are two ways in which the just world hypothesis can lead to overconfidence. Firstly,One's success is attributed to one's efforts. The belief that ``I have put in the effort to deserve a good outcome'' supports the internal attribution of success. Second,Failures of others are also attributed to lack of effort or errors in judgment.. The view that ``that failure was a natural outcome'' strengthens the FAE. Both directions reinforce your superiority as a judge.

An important ethical implication of Lerner's work is the construct of victim blaming. Victims of drug poisoning, patients who suffer from side effects, customers who suffer from misjudgment -- when we see these entities, the just world hypothesis unconsciously creates the feeling that ``there must be something wrong with the victims.''This is precisely why pharmaceutical industry ethics requires a conscious resistance to the just world hypothesis.. The implication for material judges is to ask whether they are relying on the untested assumption that the world is inherently fair for their confidence in the correctness of their judgments.

08Confucius and Laozi ── The manners of gentlemen and men and virtues

The psychology of ``blaming outsiders'' is not something that modern psychology discovered. Ancient Chinese thinkers had already observed the same place 2,500 years ago.Confucius (BC 551–479)'s "Analects" in the Wei Ling Gong section contains a passage that directly addresses the topic of this article.

“A prince seeks things from himself, and a dwarf seeks things from others.

Confucius shows a contrast between two types of people.gentleman ---A mature person --- seeks the cause of what happened.child --- An immature person -- looks to others for the cause of what happened. Miller & Ross's self-serving bias was already observed by Confucius as a polarized personality type 2,500 years ago. It should be noted that Confucius "A gentleman does not blame others" I am not preaching this passively. what he preached “A gentleman keeps asking himself questions.” This is an active manner.

contemporary Lao Tzu (c. 6th century BC) pointed to the same place from a different angle. In chapter 38 of the Tao Te Ching, he presents two types of virtue.

“Higher virtue does not make virtue, but virtue is virtue. Lower virtue does not lose virtue, and meaning has no virtue.

Lao Tzu's proposition can be expressed in the language of modern psychology as follows.The more people feel that they are virtuous, that they are right, or that they are capable, the further away they are from virtue.. Because that feeling itself is the work of a mind that doesn't see its own limits. On the other hand, people who continue to realize that they are far from virtue end up getting closer to virtue. Lao Tzu depicts the distortion of self-serving attributions that Heider, Kelley, Miller & Ross demonstrated in their empirical research as a hierarchy of virtues.

The implications are direct for material reviewers. ``I am conducting a rigorous review,'' ``I understand the regulations,'' and ``my judgment is accurate.'' These feelings themselves serve as signals to be careful.When you have an unwavering belief in the correctness of your judgment, that is the state that requires the most verification.. This is a modern echo of Lao Tzu and Lao Tzu.

09In the pharmaceutical field ─ 4 scenes where external attribution moves

Bringing abstract theory to the field. I will identify four specific situations in the day-to-day life of a material reviewer where self-serving attributional bias is at play. There are many parts that overlap with the defense mechanism scenes mentioned in Part 3, but here we will discuss them. direction of attribution Try to focus on and observe.

The structure common to these four isDon't use it as an opportunity to update your judgment framework every time the result of your judgment comes out. That's it. Good results are treated as evidence of ability, and bad results are treated as peculiarities of the situation. Both directions negate the need to reconsider the judgment framework. Herein lies the most subtle part of how overconfidence persists.

104 ways to resolve “outside blame”

Self-serving biases operate unconsciously and cannot be completely eradicated. Same structure as Kahneman's warning (Part 1). However, its function manners of observing I can have it. As part of our practice, we will propose four manners.

The common principles of the four manners are:Rather than attacking self-serving attribution bias directly, consciously invoke its symmetry That's what it means. Increasing your attribution to yourself, deepening your situational understanding of others, and maintaining your skepticism of positive outcomes—these are different angles to reducing overconfidence, habits that grow in parallel with Vaillant's transition to mature defense (part 3).

The psychology of blaming outsiders is not a problem of individual personality, but a universal structural tendency of humankind - this was the central proposition of this episode. Heider's attribution theory, Kelley's covariation model, Miller & Ross's self-serving bias, Ross's fundamental attribution error, Langer's illusion of control, Lerner's just world hypothesis, Confucius's ``Junzi seeking lords'', and Laozi's ``low manners''--seven perspectives have pointed to the same place using different words.Success is mine, failure is someone else - this distortion of attribution prevents updating of the judgment framework and sustains overconfidence.。

Defense mechanisms in Part 3 and attribution bias in this part are two major mental structures that support overconfidence. The former supports the same function within the unconscious, and the latter on the surface of social cognition. Next time (Part 5), we will discuss these two structures. Signs observable from the outside We will deal with how it appears as a. We will develop a vocabulary for observation at three levels: signs of one's own overconfidence, signs of overconfidence in others, and signs of overconfidence in the organization. If the previous three chapters have been about ``why overconfidence occurs,'' the fifth chapter will be about ``how to notice it.''