What Is Actor-Observer Bias? | Definition & Examples
Actor-observer bias is the tendency to attribute the behaviour of others to internal causes, while attributing our own behaviour to external causes. In other words, actors explain their own behaviour differently than how an observer would explain the same behaviour.
Because actor-observer bias can influence how we perceive and interact with other people, it can lead us to inaccurate assumptions and misunderstandings.
What is actor-observer bias?
Actor-observer bias (or actor-observer asymmetry) is a type of cognitive bias, or an error in thinking. More specifically, it is a type of attribution bias, a bias that occurs when we form judgements and assumptions about why people behave in certain ways.
According to the actor-observer bias, we are more likely to attribute our actions to external circumstances, rather than to our personality. However, when we are in the role of the observer explaining the behavior of others, we are more likely to blame their character. This erroneous, or mistaken, assumption on the observer’s part is called fundamental attribution error.
What is attribution?
In psychology, attribution refers to how we perceive and explain the causes of behavior. On a typical day, we make numerous attributions about our own behavior and the behavior of others. Because we are usually unaware of this process, it is prone to bias.
There are two main types of attribution:
- External (or situational) attribution interprets someone’s behaviour as being caused by their environment, or by factors outside of their control.
- Internal (or dispositional) attribution interprets someone’s behaviour to their personality or disposition.
As a result of actor-observer bias, the attributions we make depend directly on whether we are the actor or the observer.
Individualistic cultures, which tend to be found in countries such as the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, are more achievement-oriented. Here, a person’s character is thought to be the primary explanation for their behavior.
In contrast, people from collectivist cultures, which tend to be found in East Asian, Latin American, and African countries, are more group or relationship-oriented. Due to this, they are more likely to seek a broader perspective, also taking into account situational factors when explaining someone’s behaviour.
What causes the actor-observer bias?
Human behaviour is a complex phenomenon, leading to several possible explanations of the actor-observer bias. However, there are three particular explanations, which are very intertwined with each other:
Attentional differences
As actors, we cannot easily perceive our own behaviour. In other words, we cannot see ourselves behaving. For this reason, our attention as actors tends to be directed outwards. Therefore, we are more likely to seek the cues that shape our behaviour in our environment or the situation.
On the contrary, from the observer’s viewpoint, the environment is stable, and functions as a mere background or context. As observers, we focus our attention on the actor’s behavior, and take it more or less at ‘face value’, i.e., suggesting fixed personality traits.
Differences in available information
When we are trying to explain our own behaviour as actors, we have much more information available to us. We know how we behaved in the past, our emotional state, and our intentions. If we are rude to someone, we are more inclined to think that this was an exception, rather than the rule.
For instance, we may recall very few instances when we insulted anyone, and we may believe that in most of these instances we were provoked. Because we know that we don’t always behave that way, we associate our behaviour with the situation, rather than our personality.
The opposite is true from the observer’s standpoint. The only information we have is what is observable to us. Due to this lack of information, we have a tendency to assume the behaviour is due to an internal characteristic. As observers, if a stranger is rude to us, we will probably blame their personality, rather than thinking that they just were having a bad day.
Motivational differences
Collecting and processing information doesn’t only serve the purpose of understanding and structuring our reality. Our motives also influence this process. An example of such a motive is the need to enhance or protect one’s self-esteem.
The actor-observer bias mostly arises in negative situations, when the behavior is blame-worthy. No one likes to look bad, so to protect their self-esteem, actors are more likely to blame the situation than take responsibility.
Observers on the other hand, are outsiders in the situation. As their main motive is to understand what’s happening,their self-esteem is not at stake.
As a result, we judge others’ behavior by overestimating the importance of fundamental character traits, and underestimating the importance of situation and context.
Actor-observer bias example
Actor-observer bias encourages us to deflect responsibility when we are the actor, but assign the problem to personality traits when we are the observer.
In other words, the advisor, as an observer, is attributing the student’s performance to their personality traits, underestimating the role that circumstances might have played. On the other hand, the student, reflecting as an actor on their own behavior, attributes their poor performance to situational forces, ignoring their own responsibility.
In reality, both factors are likely at play here.
Frequently asked questions
Sources for this article
We strongly encourage students to use sources in their work. You can cite our article (APA Style) or take a deep dive into the articles below.
This Scribbr articleNikolopoulou, K. (2023, January 07). What Is Actor-Observer Bias? | Definition & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 31 March 2025, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/bias-in-research/the-actor-observer-bias/
Jones, E. E., & Nisbett, R. E. (1987). The actor and the observer: Divergent perceptions of the causes of behavior. Preparation of This Paper Grew Out of a Workshop on Attribution Theory Held at University of California, Los Angeles, Aug 1969.
Malle, B. F. (2006). The actor-observer asymmetry in attribution: A (surprising) meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 132(6), 895–919. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.6.895