Skip to content

The Ultimate Attribution Error

Pettigrew, T. F. (1979). The Ultimate Attribution Error: Extending Allport’s Cognitive Analysis of Prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5(4), 461-476.

Type
Journal article
Intellectual base
Primary research
Year
1979
Volume
5
Issue
4
Pages
461-476
DOI
10.1177/014616727900500407
DOI registrant
SAGE Publications
Link
https://doi.org/10.1177/014616727900500407
Cited from
psychology, sociology_anthropology

Cited by

3 citations across 3 artifacts.

Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.

Primes

  • Ethnocentrism
    • The ultimate-attribution-error literature

      This sourceIdentifies the systematic tendency to attribute negative out-group behavior to disposition and positive in-group behavior to situation (and vice versa), creating self-reinforcing ethnocentric causal interpretations.

      Supported in partVerified against the publisher's abstract

      Pettigrew proposes an "ultimate attribution error": prejudiced people who perceive a negative act by an outgroup member "will more than others attribute it dispositionally", by contrast with "the same act by an ingroup member", while a positive outgroup act is credited to luck, high motivation or "the exceptional case". That asymmetric reading of group behaviour is the literature the sentence invokes. Only the out-group half is stated outright; the in-group reversal is implied by the comparison rather than spelled out, and the error is presented as a proposal rather than a demonstrated finding.

      “An "ultimate attribution error" is proposed: (1) when prejudiced peonle perceive what they regard as a negative act by an outgroup member, they will more than others attribute it dispositionally, often as genetically determined, in comparison to the same act by an ingroup member”

      From the publisher's abstract.

      Read by an automated reader; not a human review. How support was checked

  • Fundamental Attribution Error
    • Mixed evidence suggests both mechanisms operate in different contexts (Pettigrew 1979

      This sourceProposes the intergroup 'ultimate attribution error' (out-group negative acts attributed dispositionally, in-group situationally); supports D17-067's intergroup-attribution point.

      Supported in partVerified against the publisher's abstract

      Pettigrew's abstract supplies the intergroup-attribution asymmetry (out-group misdeeds read dispositionally, in-group's situationally) as a proposal with predictions, not as evidence that two mechanisms operate in different contexts.

      “An "ultimate attribution error" is proposed: (1) when prejudiced peonle perceive what they regard as a negative act by an outgroup member, they will more than others attribute it dispositionally, often as genetically determined, in comparison to the same act by an ingroup member”

      From the publisher's abstract.

      Read by an automated reader; not a human review. How support was checked

Domain-specific

Verification

Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.

Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 2 of 3 citations: 2 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.

Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.

See how references were verified.

Registry ID ref:e114b78d38d3 · see in the full table