• DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.37.3.322
• Corpus ID: 37562229

Egocentric Biases in Availability and Attribution

@article{Ross1979EgocentricBI,
  title={Egocentric Biases in Availability and Attribution},
  author={Michael W. Ross and Fiore Sicoly},
  journal={Journal of Personality and Social Psychology},
  year={1979},
  volume={37},
  pages={322-336}
}

• M. Ross, Fiore Sicoly
• Published 1 March 1979
• Psychology
• Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Five experiments were conducted to assess biases in availability of information in memory and attributions of responsibilit y for the actions and decisions that occurred during a previous group interaction. The subject populations sampled included naturally occurring discussion groups, married couples, basketball teams, and groups assembled in the laboratory. The data provided consistent evidence for egocentric biases in availability and attribution: One's own contributions to a joint product were more readily available, that is, more frequently and easily recalled; individuals accepted more responsibility for a group product than other participants attributed to them. In addition, statements attributed to the self were recalled more accurately and the availability bias was attenuated, though not eliminated, when the group product was negatively evaluated (Experiment 2). Finally, when another participant's contributions were made more available to the individual via a selective retrieval process, the individual allocated correspondingly more responsibility for the group decisions to the coparticipant (Experiment 5). The determinants and pervasiveness of the egocentric biases are considered. One instance of a phenomenon examined in the present experiments is familiar to almost anyone who has conducted joint research. Consider the following: You have worked on a research project with another person, and the question arises as to who should be "first author" (i.e., who contributed more to the final product?). Often, it seems that both of you feel entirely justified in claiming that honor. Moreover, since you are convinced that your view of reality must be shared by your colleague (there being only one reality), you assume that the other person is attempting to take advantage of you. Sometimes such concerns are settled or prevented by the use of arbitrary decision rules, for example, the rule of "alphabetical priority"—