SavedAdd your journal

Journals / İktisadi İdari ve Siyasal Araştırmalar Dergisi / 2025 / Cilt: 10 Sayı: 28

The Fundamental Attribution Error in Academic Decision-Making Processes

Akademik Karar Alma Süreçlerinde Temel Atıf Hatası

Mehmet Yiğit(ISPARTA UYGULAMALI BİLİMLER ÜNİVERSİTESİ, BÜYÜKKUTLU UYGULAMALI BİLİMLER FAKÜLTESİ, ULUSLARARASI TİCARET VE İŞLETMECİLİK BÖLÜMÜ)0000-0002-3921-9347
Asena Gizem Yiğit(SÜLEYMAN DEMİREL ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-9791-2211
Pages
733–753
Publication Date
2025-10-31
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings reveal that academics exhibit the fundamental attribution error, as evidenced by their differing responses when explaining the scenario from their own perspective versus that of others.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study aims to investigate whether the fundamental attribution error, defined as a cognitive bias within the Behavioral Economics literature, manifests itself within academic settings.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The sample consists of 151 academics who have supervised graduate students at least once or are currently supervising them.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings reveal that academics exhibit the fundamental attribution error, as evidenced by their differing responses when explaining the scenario from their own perspective versus that of others.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Temel Atıf Hatası · Bilişsel Önyargılar · Davranışsal İktisat

Abstract

This study aims to investigate whether the fundamental attribution error, defined as a cognitive bias within the Behavioral Economics literature, manifests itself within academic settings. The sample consists of 151 academics who have supervised graduate students at least once or are currently supervising them. Participants were randomly assigned to control and experimental groups, each presented with a scenario related to graduate supervision, followed by a set of questions to be answered. The scenarios in the study were presented to the control group as a case concerning a student’s own advisor, whereas for the experimental group, they involved a complaint made by a student under the supervision of the academic. The questions following the scenarios focused on internal and external factors explaining the situation, comprising five items for each factor. Differences in responses between the two groups were analyzed using the Chi-square test. The findings reveal that academics exhibit the fundamental attribution error, as evidenced by their differing responses when explaining the scenario from their own perspective versus that of others. This indicates that the fundamental attribution error can also be observed in professional environments.

Özet

Bu çalışmada, Davranışsal İktisat literatüründe, bireylerin başkalarının davranışlarını değerlendirirken içsel; kendi davranışlarını değerlendirirken ise dışsal faktörlere ağırlık vermesi olarak tanımlanan ve bilişsel önyargılardan biri olan temel atıf hatasının akademik çevrelerde kendini gösterip göstermediğinin araştırılması amaçlanmıştır. Çalışmanın örneklemi, en az bir kez lisansüstü öğrenci danışmanlığı yürütmüş ya da yürütmekte olan 151 akademisyenden oluşmaktadır. Çalışmada katılımcılar, rasgele olarak kontrol ve deney gruplarına atanmış ve her bir gruba lisansüstü danışmanlıklar ile ilgili birer senaryo sunularak verilen soruların yanıtlanması talep edilmiştir. Çalışmadaki senaryolar, kontrol grubuna bir öğrencinin kendi danışmanıyla ilgili; deney grubuna ise akademisyenin kendi danışmanlığındaki öğrencinin şikâyetiyle ilgili olarak verilmiştir. Anketlerde sunulan senaryoların ardından sorulan sorular, senaryolardaki durumu açıklamak amacıyla içsel ve dışsal faktörlere odaklanan 5’er sorudan oluşmaktadır. Her iki gruba yöneltilen sorulara verilen cevaplar arasındaki farklar Ki-Kare testi ile incelenmiştir. Bulgular, akademisyenlerin, temel atıf hatasına düştüğünü; senaryodaki durumu açıklarken kendilerini ve başkalarını değerlendirdiklerinde farklı cevaplar verdiklerini ortaya koymuştur. Bu durum temel atıf hatasının profesyonel iş çevrelerinde de gözlemlenebileceğini göstermektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Yiğit, M., Yiğit, A. G. (2025). The Fundamental Attribution Error in Academic Decision-Making Processes. İktisadi İdari ve Siyasal Araştırmalar Dergisi, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 28, 733–753. https://doi.org/10.25204/iktisad.1720349

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (38)

  1. Akdoğan, N. (2019). Düşük statülü grupların yüksek statülü gruplara yönelik olumlu tutumu. Uludağ Üniversitesi Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 20(37), 711-737. https://doi.org/10.21550/sosbilder.469991
  2. Akgün Kandemir, N. (2019). Aile içi iletişim çatışmalarının temel atıf hatası bağlamında değerlendirilmesi (Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Marmara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü. İstanbul.
  3. Berry, Z. (2015). Explanations and ımplications of the fundamental attribution error: A review and proposal. Journal of Integrated Social Sciences, 5(1), 44-57. https://tinyurl.com/444v7u5z
  4. Epley, N., Morewedge, C. K. ve Keysar, B. (2004). Perspective taking in children and adults: Equivalent egocentrism but differential correction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40 (6), 760–768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2004.02.002
  5. Fein, S. (2001). Beyond the fundamental attribution era?. Psychological Inquiry. 12(1), 16-21. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1201_02
  6. Gilbert, D. T. ve Malone, P. S. (1995). The correspondence bias. Psychological Bulletin, 117(1), 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.1.21
  7. Granot, Y. ve Balcetis, E. (2013). Fundamental attribution error. K.D. Keith (Ed.). The encyclopedia of cross-cultural psychology (Volume II) içinde (s. 576). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118339893.wbeccp232
  8. Griffin, D. W. ve Ross, L. (1991). Subjective construal, social inference, and human misunderstanding. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 319-359. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60333-0
  9. Gürbüz, S. ve Şahin, F. (2017). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma yöntemleri felsefe- yöntem- analiz (4. bs.). Ankara: Seçkin Yayınları.
  10. Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.
  11. Hooper, N., Erdogan, A., Keen, G., Lawton, K. ve McHugh, L. (2015). Perspective taking reduces the fundamental attribution error. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 4(2), 69–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2015.02.002
  12. Ichheiser, G. (1949). Analysis and typology of personality misinterpretations. American Journal of Sociology, 55 (2), 26-56. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2770750
  13. Ji, L., Peng, K. ve Nisbett, R. E. (2000). Culture, control, and perception of relationships in the environment. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 78(5), 943-955. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.5.943
  14. Jones, E. E. (1979). The rocky road from acts to dispositions. American Psychologist, 34(2), 107–117. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.2.107
  15. Jones, E. E. ve Harris, V. A. (1967). The attribution of attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 3(1), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(67)90034-0
  16. Jones, E. E., ve Nisbett, R. E. (1972). The actor and the observer: Divergent perceptions of the causes of behavior. E. E. Jones (Ed.), Attribution: perceiving the causes of behavior içinde (s. 186). General Learning Pres.
  17. Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation içinde (s. 192- 238). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
  18. Kızgın, Y. ve Dalgın, T. (2012). Atfetme teorisi: öğrencilerin başarı ve başarısızlıklarını değerlendirmedeki atfetme farklılıkları. Uluslararası Yönetim İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, 8(15), 61-77. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/ijmeb/issue/54849/751072
  19. Kim, D., Ko, Y.J., Lee, J.S. ve Sato, S. (2020). The effect of attribution on athlete scandals: consumer responses toward scandalized athletes and endorsements. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 29(4), 269- 281. http://doi.org/10.32731/SMQ.294.122020.03
  20. Lewin, K. (1931). The conflict between Artistotelian and Galileian modes of thought in contemporary psychology. Journal of General Psychology, 5(2), 141-177. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.1931.9918387
  21. Maddux, W. W. ve Yuki, M. (2006). The ‘ripple effect’: cultural differences in perceptions of the consequences of events. Personality And Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(5), 669-683. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205283840
  22. Ma-Kellams, C. (2020). Cultural variation and similarities in cognitive thinking styles versus judgment biases: a review of environmental factors and evolutionary forces. Review of General Psychology, 24(3), 238-253. https://doi.org/10.1177/1089268019901270
  23. Miller, D. T., ve Ross, M. (1975). Self-serving biases in the attribution of causality: Fact or fiction. Psychological Bulletin, 82(2), 213-225. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076486
  24. Miller, J. G. (1984). Culture and the development of everyday social explanation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 961-978. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46.5.961
  25. Moore, D. A., Swift, S. A., Sharek, Z. S. ve Gino, F. (2010). Correspondence bias in performance evaluation: Why grade inflation works. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(6), 843–852. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210371316
  26. Moran, J. M., Jolly, E. ve Mitchell, J. P. (2014). Spontaneous mentalizing predicts the fundamental attribution error. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 26(3), 569–576. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00513
  27. Morris, M.W. ve Peng, K. (1994). Culture and cause: American and Chinese attributions for social and physical events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(6), 949-971. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.6.949
  28. Posner M. I., Snyder C. R. R. ve Solso R. (2004). Attention and cognitive control. Balota D. A. ve Marsh E. J. (Eds.), Cognitive psychology: Key readings içinde (s. 205–223). Psychology Press.
  29. Preston, C. C. ve Colman, A. M. (2000). Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: Reliability, validity, discriminating power and respondent preferences. Acta Psychologica, 104(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-6918(99)00050-5
  30. Riggio, H. R. ve Garcia, A. L. (2009). The power of situations: Jonestown and the fundamental attribution error. Teaching of Psychology, 36(2), 108–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/00986280902739636
  31. Ross L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (s. 173–220). New York, NY: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60357-3
  32. Ross, L., Amabile, T. M. ve Steinmetz, J. L. (1977). Social roles, social control, and biases in social-perception processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(7), 485-494. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.35.7.485
  33. Ross, M., ve Sicoly, F. (1979). Egocentric biases in availability and attribution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(3), 322-336. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.3.322
  34. Simon, H.A. (1955). A behavioral modal of rational choice, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99-118. https://doi.org/10.2307/1884852
  35. Steiner, I. D. ve Field, W. L. (1960). Role assignment and interpersonal influence. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 61(2), 239-245. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040441
  36. Walster, E. (1966). Assignment of responsibility for an accident. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3(1), 73–79. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022733
  37. Williams, S. N., Armitage, C. J., Tampe, T. ve Dienes, K. A. (2021). Public perceptions of non-adherence to pandemic protection measures by self and others: A study of COVID-19 in the United Kingdom. PloS one, 16(10), e0258781. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258781
  38. Winter, L., Uleman, J. S. ve Cunniff, C. (1985). How automatic are social judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(4), 904–917. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.49.4.904