Previous research indicates group members have a highly variable pattern of internal and external attributions for their performance. The authors propose that part of this variability may be explained by group members making their attributions from the perspective of both the actor and the observer. Following a pooled-performance task, group members reported inflated internal and external attributions for factors responsible for their performance as compared with attributions individuals made for their own performance. Similarly, group members reported an inflated internal and external attribution pattern of factors responsible for a similar group's performance compared to attributions individuals made for the performance of a similar other. The results demonstrate that unique processes occur in the attributions of group members compared to the attributions of individuals for their performance.
Cohen, S.G., & Bailey, D.E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management , 23, 239-290.
2.
Erez, M. (1977). Feedback: A necessary condition for the goal setting-performance relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 624-627.
3.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117-140.
4.
Fiedler, K., Semin, G.R., Finkenauer, C., & Berkel, I. (1995). Actor-observer bias in close relationships: The role of self-knowledge and self-related language. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 525-538.
5.
Forsyth, D.R., & Kelley, K.N. (1994). Attribution in groups: Estimations of personal contributions to collective endeavors. Small Group Research , 25, 367-383.
6.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: John Wiley.
7.
Hinsz, V.B. (1990). Cognitive and consensus processes in group recognition memory performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 59, 705-718.
8.
Hinsz, V.B. (1991). Individual versus group decision making: Social comparison in goals for individual task performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 987-1003.
9.
Hinsz, V.B., & Davis, J.H. (1984). Persuasive arguments theory, group polarization, and choice shifts. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 10, 260-268.
10.
Hinsz. V. B., & Nickell, G.S. (2004). Positive reactions to working in groups in a study of group and individual goal decision making . Group Dynamics, 8, 253-264.
11.
Hinsz, V.B., Tindale, R.S., & Nagao, D.H. (2008). Accentuation of information processes and biases in group judgments integrating base-rate and case-specific information. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 116-126.
12.
Hinsz, V.B., Tindale, R.S., & Vollrath, D.A. (1997). The emerging conceptualization of groups as information processors. Psychological Bulletin , 121, 43-64.
13.
Jones, E.E., & Nisbett, R.E. (1972). The actor and the observer: Divergent perceptions of the causes of behavior. In E. E. Jones et al. (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior (pp. 79-94). Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press .
14.
Kelley, H.H. (1979). Personal relationships: Their structures and processes . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum .
15.
Kerr, N.L., MacCoun, R.J., & Kramer, G.P. (1996). Bias in judgment: Comparing individuals and groups . Psychological Review, 103, 687-719.
16.
Leary, M.R., & Forsyth, D.R. (1987). Attributions of responsibility for collective endeavors. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Group processes (pp. 167-188). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
17.
Locke, E.A., & Latham, G.P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance . Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall .
18.
Miller, D.T., & Ross, M. (1975). Self-serving biases in the attribution of causality: Fact of fiction. Psychological Bulletin, 82, 213-225.
19.
Myers, D.G., & Lamm H. (1976). The group polarization phenomenon. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 602-627.
20.
Rand, T.M., & Wexley, K.N. (1975). Demonstration of the effect, "similar to me," in simulated employment interviews. Psychological Reports , 36, 535-544.
21.
Rantilla, A.K. (2000). Collective task responsibility allocation: Revisiting the group-serving bias. Small Group Research, 31, 739-766.
22.
Robins, R.W., Spranca, M.D., & Mendelsohn, G.A. (1996). The actor-observer effect revisited: Effects of individual differences and repeated social interaction on actor and observer attributions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 375-389.
23.
Ross, L., Greene, D., & House, P. (1977). The "false consensus effect": An egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 279-301.
24.
Sears, G.J., & Rowe, P.M. (2003). A personality-based similar-to-me effect in the employment interview: Conscientiousness, affect-versus competence-mediated interpretations, and the role of job relevance. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 35, 13-24.
25.
Taylor, D.M., & Doria, J.R. (1981). Self-serving and group-serving bias in attribution . Journal of Social Psychology, 113, 201-211.
26.
Taylor, D.M., & Jaggi, V. (1974). Ethnocentrism and causal attribution in a south Indian context. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 5, 162-171.
27.
Taylor, S.E., & Fiske, S.T. (1975). Point of view and perceptions of causality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 439-445.
28.
Weiner, B. (1985). Human motivation. New York : Springer-Verlag.
29.
Wright, E.F., Lüüs, C.A., & Christie, S.D. (1990). Does group discussion facilitate the use of consensus information in making causal attributions ? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 261-269.
30.
Zaccaro, S.J., Peterson, C., & Walker, S. (1987). Self-serving attributions for individual and group performance. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50, 257-263.
31.
Zajonc, R. (1965). Social facilitation. Science, 149, 269-274.
