PSYCH 424 blog

The well researched topic of fundamental attribution error, which is the tendency to overemphasize personal characteristics (internal attributions) and disregard situational factors (external attributions) when judging peoples’ behavior, often leads people to instantly mischaracterize others for being inherently bad (Gawronski, 2007). Despite this well- established cognitive process, people still believe they consider external factors more than others (Van Boven et al., 2003), making awareness and combating this process more critical. When simply listening to lectures or reading articles, students attributed the information given to them as representative of the educator/writer’s opinions, resulting in corresponding assumptions, whether positive or negative (Coren, 1993; Jones & Harris, 1967). Gilbert et al. (1988) found that the fundamental attribution error is an automatic cognitive process, in which people must make significant efforts to avoid. Therefore, many groups use the concept of giving the benefit of the doubt, which helps consider what may have caused someone to partake in a certain scenario or express a given opinion. 

Although the English idiom is said to be traced back to the 1700’s (O’Neill, 1770), benefit of the doubt, as a concept, has been both a religious and cultural practice for substantially longer, as it is referenced in Christian, Jewish, and Muslim sacred texts (Illuminating Lamp, 2009; Wollenberg, 2010). Teamwork and healthy relationships heavily rely on trusting one another’s intentions and taking differences into account, without attributing internal underlying negative factors to them. The vulnerability loop, which describes taking the risk in trusting someone, often encourages similar assurances (Neale et al., 2003), essentially creating a prosocial trusting environment between those involved. By simply accepting that people have good intentions, are trying their best, and/or have an explanation, one can add so much to the integrity of the relationship, instead of taking from it, subsequently decreasing negative attitudes and animosity. This may also constitute as being charitable, a necessary deed in many religions, where the kindest explanations are sought instead of forcing people to prove themselves. 

Judaism and Islam are largely associated with collectivism, as they both thrive for dedicated community and prioritize proper relationship functioning over their own idiosyncratic goals (Cohen et al., 2016). That said, as it is the culture, in collectivist regions, people tend to steer away from blaming individuals on their personal failures or give personal credit for success, rather, they favor external over internal attributions (Lee et al., 1996). This difference in error of attribution depends on the cultural context, but can likely be influenced by religion, as well, by following the concept of giving the benefit of the doubt. Hence, by combating the fundamental attribution error and modeling communities that don’t allow for it, people are encouraged to decrease bias, suggestive beliefs, and focus on values. This method highlights a unique way of thinking which allows context to be considered, a practice highly desired in clinical psychology training (Hunt et al., 2019). 

Combating this type of error in attribution even extends to marriage satisfaction and the challenges that may arise within personal relationships. While there is more concern for psychological intimacy and emotional excitement in marriage among individualistic culture, collectivist culture emphasized the importance of life-long commitment and cultural traditions (Lutzow, 2011), likely influencing the success rate of their marriages. Despite having some of the suspected highest infidelity numbers in the world (Crompton, 2015), collectivist countries positively predicted marriage quality (Cirhinlioğlu et al., 2019). This is possibly caused by attributing such actions to external factors and context, instead of seeing the perpetrator as inherently bad or having unfavorable motive. Moreover, people from individualistic cultures may tend to favor internal attributions for the wives’ behavior in this case and see her as weak or lacking self-respect. Just like the vulnerability loop, which enables trust and confidence, the fundamental attribution error can lead to a devasting loop of pointing out victims and misplacing blame. Religions and collectivist cultures alike show the importance of not falling victim to this error, and it’s crucial that people make efforts to overcome this biased mode of viewing others. The benefit of the doubt isn’t just a religious theme, but a moral one, which everyone should be educated on and be encouraged to practice, whether it’s inherently part of the culture or not. 

References

The most litigious society in the history of the world, The U.S. (Gaver, 1999) has been proven to lack legitimate trial methods, rely on disproven methods, and hasn’t updated its legal system, despite having comprehensive research on sustainable and functional alternatives. Even after the distribution of the document, Eyewitness Evidence: A Guide for Law Enforcement (Technical Working Group for Eyewitness Evidence, 1999), a manual of national guidelines explaining the “collection and preservation of eyewitness evidence for criminal cases” (Wells et al., 2000, p. 581), only 56% of police agencies in The U.S. have changed at least one of their policies (Police Executive Research Forum, 2013). With so many lives relying on the functional legal system, it’s crucial that mistakes and misunderstandings be minimized and that justice is served in the method which the community values. Furthermore, research has proven that the prison system is of limited value and may increase the risk of recidivism. It has been described as lacking the tools prisoners may need to make personal changes that increase growth and decrease reoffending (Gruman et al., 2016). That is where alternative methods for justice, equity, and fairness come into play, such as therapeutic communities, sentencing circles, and in the case of the middle east, sulha.

Gruman et al. (2016) discuss sentencing circles as an aboriginal approach to sanctioning, through a unique community-based system, which is based on traditional healing practices in North American aboriginal cultures. Just like Native American sentencing circles, sulha, the traditional Arab method for resolving conflicts, is grounded in the philosophy of restorative justice and reconciliation. The practice which has been documented for thousands of years through different methods, in Arabic Islamic, Christian, and Jewish texts, highlights personal redemption, community growth, and prioritizes peace and reconciliation over strict justice and blame (Pely, 2016). The concept requires both parties to agree on a third-party mediator, often one of the community’s designated peacekeepers, who begins listening to both sides of the conflict. Their position requires them to observe thoroughly, validate emotions, understand all contexts of the conflict, and construct a resolution accordingly. The sulha process is recognized as a termination of grudges, anger, and discomfort and results in a legally binding contract between the parties. Because this community-oriented justice system relies not on law enforcement, nor any political/religious leaders, the compassionate mediator guides the community in reestablishing common values and norms by reducing harm and increasing egalitarianism (Bazemore & Schiff, 2015).

Looking at wrongful convictions in The U.S., highlights the imminent need for a shift of communal justice programs, as most of the errors within the criminal justice system could be addressed. A recently developed list of contributing factors in wrongful convictions includes eyewitness testimony, unreliable forensic science evidence, false confessions, incentivised witnesses, government misconduct, and inadequate defense counsel (Garrett, 2020). The Innocence Project has attributed much of the error to police interviewing (Bang et al., 2018) emphasizing why sulha as a conceptual framework may be an alternative solution for such discrepancies. By working through a systematic framework, such as that of The U.S. criminal legal system, parties are denied individuality and objectivity. By tackling the nature of issues on a fundamental level through consultation of professionals and other parties, the community approach isn’t only changing issues on the surface, it is also enabling healthier relationships and reducing desires to avenge. Over the past 18 years, The Palestinian Conflict Transformation (sulha) Center has reportedly addressed thousands of cases with an 83% success rate, with both parties expressing satisfaction (Zoughbi, 2006).

Although sulha is a practice most commonly found among collective nations and groups, its implementation among more individualistic groups could prove valuable and beneficial. A government-run judicial system is costly, lacks social context, and prioritizes the punishment of offenders over community harmonization (Roberts & Roach, 2004). By focusing on a change in behavior along with reparations (compensation), communities can be empowered into evading dehumanization and vengeance (Zoughbi, 2006) because crime significantly affects all three parties: the community, the offender, and the victim (Roberts & Roach, 2004). Moreover, recidivism in individuals receiving community sentences is typically lower than in released prisoners (Yukhnenko et al., 2019), presenting the opportunity for reduced crime in groups utilizing community-based justice frameworks. From wrongful convictions to dysfunctional legal trials, this method has proven to provide restorative sentencing and reparations for harm suffered (Roberts & Roach, 2004) through a framework that has been used and overwhelmingly successful for thousands of years.

References

Gaver, J. (1999, October 18). LITIGATION: Who Wins?  Who Loses? And, Who Really  Benefits? Action America. Retrieved online at: http://actionamerica.org/courts/litigate.html

Technical Working Group for Eyewitness Evidence. (1999). Eyewitness evidence: A guide for law enforcement [Booklet]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.

Police Executive Research Forum. (2013). A national survey of eyewitness identification procedures in law enforcement agencies. Retrieved from https:// www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=264692

Wells, G. L., Malpass, R. S., Lindsay, R. C. L., Fisher, R. P., Turtle, J. W., & Fulero, S. M. (2000). From the lab to the police station: A successful application of eyewitness research. American Psychologist, 55, 581–598.