PSY307-Hostile Attribution bias
From PsychWiki - A Collaborative Psychology Wiki
Section I
Baron and Richardson (1994) define the hostile attribution bias as the tendency to perceive hostile intent on the part of others even when it is really lacking. In laymen’s terms, the hostile attribution bias is when the recipient falsely assumes that the person delivering the actions did so with the purpose or goal to cause some sort of stress, distress, or harm. Hostile attribution bias describes a tendency to interpret the intent of others who create negative feelings for the individual as hostile when social cues fail to indicate a clear intent (Matthews & Norris, 2002). The hostile attribution bias can influence aggressive behavior by way of reactive aggression, which is aggression in response to prior provocation (Halligan, Healy & Murray, 2008). Reactive aggression is more likely in a hostile attribution situation than proactive aggression, which is performed in the absence of provocation (Baron, 1994). These differences are imperative to understand the significance of ambiguous situations. The hostile attribution bias can negatively influence aggressive behavior. A good incorporation of the hostile attribution bias would be its role in the general aggression model, Anderson’s revised model. Hostile attribution bias falls in the “person” box under input. The person input interacting with the situation input creates ambiguity in the situation. The ambiguity is cognition. There are three ways to prevent the application, or use, of the hostile attribution bias. The first method of prevention is to reduce the ambiguity of intent. Secondly, since the hostile attribution bias is linked to personality traits, change the trait. The third method of prevention is to be aware that just because one may become, or is, hostile, it does not mean they will aggress. Having a general awareness of the hostile attribution bias can lead to a reduction in aggressive behavior, with some conscious thought people will take the time to look at a situation and thoroughly evaluate it rather than hastily make incorrect attributions.
Section II
A prime example of the hostile attribution bias in act would be if one were to consider a real life situation that likely happens to virtually any driver in the greater Los Angeles region at some point or another. For example, say there is a car on the 10 freeway driving erratically, swerving between cars, crossing multiple lanes without using their turn indicator, and driving at high speeds. The driving style of this person has clearly frightened other drivers on the road as demonstrated by the fact that the other drivers become more cautious, honk their horns, or simply move out of the person’s way. The person is driving erratically because his wife is in the back seat going in to labor and he is hurrying to the USC medical, however, not a single other car on the road is aware of his situation.
Section III
Referring to the previous example, the hostile attribution bias comes in to play because the other drivers are not aware of the situational factors, they are likely to be cursing or honking their horns, and at the very least thinking to themselves that this other driver is rude and inconsiderate. By not taking into account “situational factors, people often make a fundamental attribution error, which is closely linked with the hostile attribution bias (VanOostrum & Horvath, 1997)”, and incorrectly blame internal characteristics rather than situational factors. As previously mentioned, misattributing ambiguous situational factors likely causes reactive aggression. In a study done by Dodge and his colleagues in 1987 results indicated “subjects high in reactive aggression were more likely than those high in proactive aggression to perceive the actor’s intentions as hostile when they were in fact ambiguous (Baron, 1994).”
Section IV
At first glance, it would be easy to look at Columbine and think the hostile attribution bias was in act. After all, there is a huge, general underlying belief by those that are inaccurately informed (meaning those that followed only the initial media coverage which was skewed) of the incident that Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were outcasts and had specific targets. According to this myth, their alleged targets were peers who had ostracized the two teens and left them with no choice but to take the lives of their school mates. The alleged ostracism became the largest cause of ambiguity in this situation. Simply put, there is a myth that the hostile attribution bias was in effect in this situation, though in actuality, it was not. The hostile attribution bias would not have been able to be used to prevent the aggressive behavior in this situation; Eric Harris has since been deemed a psychopath and Dylan Klebold was severely depressed. This bias would be beneficial only to help to prevent future tragedies of this sort, and to understand the real reasons behind any situation, rather than falsely appointed attributions.
References
Baron, R. & Richardson, D. (1994). Human Aggression. New York: Plenum Press
Halligan, S., Cooper, P., Healy, S. & Murray, L. (2008). The attribution of hostile intent in mothers, fathers and their children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 35(4), 594-604.
Matthews, B. & Norris, F. (2002). When is believing ‘seeing’? Hostile attribution bias as a function of self-reported aggression. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(1), 1-32.
Ruskin, D. (2006). Problematic interactions between parents and their children with ADHD: Role of attributions, emotions discipline practices, and comorbid ODD. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 67(2-B), 1165.
VanOostrum, N. & Horvath, P. (1997). The effects of hostile attribution on adolescents’ aggressive responses to social situations. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 13(1), 48-59
◄ Back to How to explain aggressive behavior? page
