23.3: Actor-Observer Differences

We often explain other people’s behavior by citing internal causes, like their beliefs and attitudes and traits. John helped his elderly neighbor carry her groceries because he’s a caring and helpful person. But how often do we explain our own actions this way? How natural would you find it to say: “I helped Agnes carry her groceries because I’m caring and helpful person.”

Of course, we might not say this because it sounds immodest. But how often do we even think of our own actions in this way? We are much more likely to say (and think) that we helped Agnes because she looked frail and in need of help. In doing so, we cite features of the situation (a frail older person needing help) rather than internal causes (I’m such a helpful person).

This asymmetry in how we think about the actions of others and our own actions is known as the actor-observer difference (or the self-other difference). We tend to see other peoples’ actions as having internal causes (John is helpful) but we see our own actions as having external (situational) causes (Agnes needed help). This phenomenon gets its name because the agent or actor (in this case John) sees his actions are largely influenced by the situation. But when John observes others, he sees their actions as largely influenced by their traits and other internal states.

The actor-observer difference amounts to a bias in our reasoning about people’s actions, both our own and those of others we observe. But it does mean that we are less susceptible to the fundamental attribution error when we try to explain our own actions than when we try to explain the actions of others.