Win at Life
The Fundamental Attribution Error
There’s a classic thinking glitch that Canadian social psychologist Lee Ross spent years untangling.
He noticed a particular way that people misread each other’s behaviour: they confuse circumstance with character.
What this means is: when someone behaves a certain way/says a certain thing/makes a particular decision, we assume it reflects their character.
We decide it’s just the kind of person they are.
But (and it’s a big but):
When we behave a certain way, we decide it is because of our situation or circumstances.
We had reasons. We were tired, stressed, hungry, overstimulated, under-caffeinated, over-caffeinated, or dealing with the school-run-from-hell. Completely understandable.
It is one of the most reliably human thinking glitches.
Particularly irritating because we all do it, even when we know better.
For example, you snap at your colleague because you were up half the night, had a stressful morning, and are literally surviving on fumes and coffee.
But if someone snaps at you, then they must be difficult, mean, belligerent, or simply “that type of person.”
Wow, SO Gen Z! (or such a Gen X, what a Boomer, Woke Brigade, Capricorn, typical West Ham fan)
(Half the time we’re not even responding to what actually happened, but to the story our brain has already filled in, in the background.)
It creates more drama than necessary. It affects how we hear things, how we judge others, and how much unnecessary stress we carry.
All absolutely understandable and solvable.
In relationships, the fundamental attribution error is often the driver for conflict, hurt feelings, and times when we cannot fathom how someone can be THAT much of a diva!
Once you notice it, however, it’s like pressing Ctrl-Alt-Delete.
You get to restart your reaction.
With some perspective, the whole thing becomes much easier.
You are able to dismount your high horse and interact with people as humans, not as characters in your internal action movie.
Get this right, and it will be one of the most useful interaction tools that you can learn.
Real-life examples
- Your partner sounds snarky when they walk in.
They must be annoyed with you, you assume.
The reality is they are running on fumes. Their brain is wrestling with an issue from earlier that day, they’ve been stuck behind a learner driver for 20 minutes, and haven’t eaten since 10am.
- A colleague doesn’t join in a conversation.
You decide they are disinterested or standoffish.
They are actually suffering from major imposter syndrome and trying not to lose their train of thought – silently praying that no one asks them a question.
- A friend takes hours to reply.
You have created a whole narrative about why they are pulling away from the friendship, and going over past things you’ve said.
Actually, they are stretched thin and racing to meet a deadline.
They’re trying to answer messages in pockets of time.
- Someone seems unfriendly at the gym.
You say hello.
They barely look up.
Obviously, they are ‘stuck-up’ and frosty. The truth is they could be painfully shy and self-conscious… or simply mid-set and hanging on for dear life.
- You make a mistake.
It happens, no one’s perfect, you had perfectly legitimate reasons.
Someone else gets something wrong and you think, “Sloppy work, they should know better than that.”
None of this makes bad behaviour acceptable – we’ve all done versions of this.
It also doesn’t mean you should be a doormat and let people get away with bad behaviour.
It’s just a reminder that our first explanation isn’t always the most accurate, and that there’s often more going on under the surface.
Why it matters
Most people are not trying to upset us.
(Obviously some are – but mostly not)
Typically though, people are trying to get through the day with whatever resources they have available.
When we forget this, we can interpret tone a bit too sharply.
We attach dramatic meaning to what are essentially neutral moments and create friction out of thin air.
The Fundamental Attribution Error helps you:
- pause before assuming the worst,
- soften your interpretation (benefit of the doubt) without diluting your boundaries,
- create space for empathy without becoming a doormat,
- choose responses that are proportionate rather than going nuclear.
It is about standing back and giving yourself a clearer view of what is actually happening. Not to excuse anything, but understanding that there are often mitigating factors in play.
Try this today
When someone’s behaviour triggers you, ask yourself:
- If I were in their shoes and I had done this, what could my reasons have been?
- If you were their defence barrister in a court case about this, what would my closing summary be?
It immediately opens up a more generous, possibly fairer interpretation, without letting you slide into fantasy or denial.
Some things to think about
- The more stress you carry, the harsher your snap judgements become.
- The people who seem “difficult” often have the most going on behind the scenes.
- Most misunderstandings come from two people interpreting the same moment through completely different internal filters.
- You can hold people accountable without assuming one action or behaviour reflects their entire personality.
I think we‘re also knee-deep into what I call the Personality-Pathologising Period, where people casually label others as narcissists, psychopaths, or histrionic based on one interaction or moment of stress.
“Didn’t reply straight away: clearly toxic.”
“Pushed back in a meeting: must be high conflict.”
“Seemed a bit distant today: emotionally unavailable.”
“Didn’t think my great idea would work: classic paranoid energy.”
That is the Fundamental Attribution Error on steroids.
Same thinking glitch, just a fancier costume.
It’s not just assuming “they’re rude”.
It’s assuming they have a personality disorder.
Optional challenge
Pick a relationship that occasionally feels prickly.
Or if you’ve got the nerve, think about someone you see regularly, who gets your back up (in your movie, they’d be your arch enemy).
For the next twenty-four hours, interpret any tricky behaviour (or any memories of it) from that person as being shaped by what they are dealing with, not who they are.
Without drifting into a full fantasy back story, question your first explanation. Notice if your tone or your patience changes.
Do you feel more willing to cut them a little more slack?
A Buddh-ish take
“All tremble at violence, all fear death. Comparing others with oneself, one should neither harm nor cause to harm.”
(there was a Nun at school who would remind us that the queen still sits on the lavatory – pretty sure she was making the same point)
A reminder from the Dhammapada that others feel just as we do, and that being kind rarely sends us in the wrong direction.
Back to Mindset Mechanics <
Back to The Vault <
Ross spent much of his career at Stanford studying how we judge one another, and how often our assumptions say more about our own mindset than about anyone else’s behaviour.
He became one of the most influential voices in modern social psychology, particularly in the areas of conflict, negotiation, and how we interpret other people’s actions.
References
Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 10). Academic Press.
Ross, L., & Nisbett, R. (1991). The Person and the Situation: Perspectives of Social Psychology. McGraw-Hill.
Dhammapada, Verse 129. (Traditional Buddhist text, attributed to the Buddha; various translations available.)