Predictions of Pettigrew's ultimate attribution error were investigated among 148 Indians (91 Hindus and 57 Muslims) and 145 Pakistanis (107 Muslims and 38 Hindus) in the Indian subcontinent. Using hypothetical scenarios, the first prediction, that negative behavior would be attributed more to dispositional than situational factors for out-group compared to in-group actors, received little support. The second prediction, that positive out-group behavior would be attributed more to situational circumstances, received considerable but not total support. Hindu participants attributed in-group actors as more competent but also warmer in Pakistan, whereas Muslim participants attributed in-group actors as being warmer in both countries. Autostereotypes (rather than heterostereotypes) of competence and warmth consistently mediated ethnocentric intergroup attributions. Collective self-esteem mediated ethnocentrism among both groups in Pakistan but only among Muslims in India, whereas social dominance orientation mediated majority group biases in both countries. Overall, the ultimate attribution error received mixed support, and results supported an in-group favoring more than out-group derogating pattern.
Brewer, M.B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin,86, 307-324.
2.
Chiu, C.-y., Morris, M.W., Hong, Y.-y., & Menon, T. (2000). Motivated cultural cognition: The impact of implicit cultural theories on dispositional attribution varies as a function of need for closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 78(2), 247-259.
3.
Cuddy, A.J.C., Norton, M.I., & Fiske, S.T. (2005). This old stereotype: The pervasiveness and persistence of the elderly stereotype. Journal of Social Issues, 61, 267-285.
4.
Engineer, A.A. (1995). Communalism in India: A historical and empirical study. New Delhi, India: Vikas.
5.
Fiske, S.T., Xu, J., Cuddy, A., & Glick, P. (1999). (Dis)respecting versus (dis)liking: Status and interdependence predict ambivalent stereotypes of competence and warmth. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 473-491.
6.
Fiske, S.T., Xu, J., Cuddy, A., & Glick, P. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Stereotype competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality ofSocial Psychology, 82, 878-902.
7.
Glick, P., Fiske, S.T., Abrams, D., Dardenne, B., Ferreria, M.-C., Gonzalez, R., et al. (2004). Anti-American sentiment and America's perceived intent to dominate: An 11-nation study. Manuscript submitted for publication.
8.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: John Wiley.
9.
Hewstone, M. (1990). The ultimate attribution error? A review of the literature on causal intergroup attribution. European Journal of Social psychology, 20, 311-335.
10.
Hewstone, M., & Ward, C. (1985). Ethnocentrism and causal attribution in South East Asia. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 614-623.
Islam, M., & Hewstone, M. (1993). Intergroup attributions and affective consequences in majority and minority groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 936-950.
13.
Krull, D.S., Loy, M.H., Lin, J., Wang, C.F., Chen, S., & Zhao, X. (1999). The fundamental attribution error: Correspondence bias in individualist and collectivist cultures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(10), 1208-1219.
14.
Lien, Y.W., Chu, R.L., Jen, C.H., & Wu, C.H. (2006). Do Chinese commit neither the fundamental attribution error nor ultimate attribution error? ChineseJournal of Psychology , 48(2), 163-182.
15.
Lin, M.H., Kwan, V.S.Y., Cheung, A., & Fiske, S.T. (2005). Stereotype content mode explains prejudice for an envied outgroup: Scale of anti-Asian American stereotypes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(1), 34-47.
16.
Liu, J.H., & Hilton, D. (2005). How the past weighs on the present: Social representations of history and their role in identity politics. British Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 1-21.
17.
Luhtanen, R., & Crocker, J. (1992). A collective self-esteem scale: Self-evaluation of one's social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 302-318.
18.
Malle, B.F. (2006). The actor-observer asymmetry in attribution: A (surprising) meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin,132(6), 895-919.
19.
McClure, J. (1998). Discounting causes of behaviour: Are two reasons better than one?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 74(1), 7-20.
20.
Miller, F.D., Smith, E.R., & Uleman, J. (1981). Measurement and interpretation of situational and dispositional attributions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 17, 80-95.
21.
Miller, J.G. (1984). Culture and the development of everyday social explanation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 46, 961-978.
22.
Minorities at Risk. (2003, December 31). Assessment for Hindus in Pakistan. College Park, MD: Centre for International Development and Conflict Management. Retrieved October 19, 2005, from http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/inscr/mar/assessment.asp?groupId=77004
23.
Morris, M., & Peng, K.P. (1994). Culture and cause: American and Chinese attributions for social and physical events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(6), 949-971.
24.
Pettigrew, T.F. (1979). The ultimate attribution error: Extending Allport's cognitive analysis of prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5, 461-476.
25.
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L.M., & Malle, B.F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741-776.
26.
Rosenberg, S.W., & Wolfsfield, G. (1977). International conflict and the problem of attribution. Journal of Conflict Resolution , 21, 75-103.
27.
Ross, L.D. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 173-220). New York: Academic Press.
28.
Sidanius, J., Liu, J.H., Shaw, J.S., & Pratto, F. (1994). Social dominance orientation, hierarchy attenuators and hierarchy enhancers: Social dominance theory and the criminal justice system. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 338-366.
29.
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press.
30.
Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., Martin, M., & Stallworth, L. (1991). Consensual racism and career track: Some implications of social dominance theory. Political Psychology, 12, 691-721.
31.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J.C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
32.
Taylor, D.M., & Jaggi, V. (1974). Ethnocentrism and causal attribution in a South Indian context. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 5, 162-171.
33.
Van Boven, L., Kamada, A., & Gilovich, T. (1999). The perceiver as perceived: Everyday intuitions about the correspondence bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1188-1199.
34.
Varshney, A. (2002). Ethnic conflict and civic life: Hindus and Muslim in India. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
35.
Vaughan, G.M., & Hogg, M.A. (2005). Social psychology (4th ed.). London: Prentice Hall.
36.
Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion . New York: Springer Verlag.
