People tend to explain their own behaviour more situationally and others' more dispositionally, though a large meta-analysis found no general asymmetry.
You were late because traffic was terrible; they were late because they are disorganised. Malle's 2006 meta-analysis of 173 studies found near-zero average effects and no overall asymmetry, so the classic hypothesis is far weaker than its textbook standing suggests.
In practice
- Your project slipped because the vendor was late; theirs slipped because they cannot plan.
- A driver who cuts across two lanes is a maniac; when you do it, you were about to miss the exit.
- Possible explanations
- One explanation is perspective: the actor is looking at the situation and the observer is looking at the actor. Another is motivation, since a situational account of one's own failure is more comfortable.
- In its favour
- The asymmetry does appear for negative and intentional events, which is where Malle's analysis located the surviving effects.
- Against it
- His meta-analysis of 173 studies found no general asymmetry, so the textbook version is unsupported; it survives because the example, your traffic against their disorganisation, is memorable.
- Standing
- Malle's 2006 meta-analysis found no general actor-observer asymmetry; the classic strong form is unsupported.
- Further reading
- Wikipedia
- Subject
- Psychology & Behavior
- Essay
- A century and a half of measuring the mind