The following figure shows the findings of Jones and Harris' (1967) study of the fundamental attribution error. The y-axis represents participants' ratings of speech writers' attitudes towards Fidel Castro. The blue bars are those speech writers who wrote pro-Castro speeches. The green bars are those speech writers who wrote anti-Castro speeches. Which pair of bars would you expect to be exactly the same height if people DID NOT make the fundamental attribution error in this study?Unknown Question Type
A
B & D
B
C & D
C
A & B
D
A & C

Question

The following figure shows the findings of Jones and Harris' (1967) study of the fundamental attribution error. The y-axis represents participants' ratings of speech writers' attitudes towards Fidel Castro. The blue bars are those speech writers who wrote pro-Castro speeches. The green bars are those speech writers who wrote anti-Castro speeches. Which pair of bars would you expect to be exactly the same height if people DID NOT make the fundamental attribution error in this study?Unknown Question Type

A

B & D

B

C & D

C

A & B

D

A & C

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

To approach this question, I’ll restate the scenario and examine what would happen if people did not commit the fundamental attribution error (FAE).

- A paired comparison: In the Jones and Harris (1967) study, the fundamental finding is that observers attributed writers’ attitudes to the writers’ dispositions when evaluating a speech, even though the writer was assigned to a position (pro- or anti-Castro) independent of the writer’s own beliefs. If there were no FAE, observers would attribute attitudes based on the actual content of the speeches, not on who wrote them.

Now, let’s analyze each option pair in light of that idea.

Option A: A & B
- A is the blue bar for Pro-Castro speech written by a Pro-Castro writer.
- B is the green bar for Anti-Castro speech written by a Pro-Castro writer.
If no FAE, you would expect ratings to align with the stance of the content itself. Since A represents pro-Castro content and B represents anti-Castro content, their heights should reflect the two different content positions. Under no FAE, you would not expect A and B to be the same height because the content varies (pro vs anti). Thus this pair would not necessarily be equal if FAE did not occur.

Option B: B & D
- B shows anti-Castro content written by a Pro-Castro writer.
- D shows anti-Castro content written by an Anti-Castro writer.
With no FAE, both speeches express anti-Castro content, so the ratings should reflect the content rather than the writer’s stated orientation. Since both are anti-Castro content, one might expect similar ratings, but note that B and D differ in the writer’s assignment (one writer’s stance is pro, the other anti). If observers were not attributing attitude to the writer, the writer’s assignment should not drive differences, so B and D could be expected to converge in rating to reflect the same anti-Castro content. However, B and D differ in the creator’s role (who authored the anti-Castro message), which could introduce other factors influencing ratings even without FAE. Overall, this pair might be argued to be similar, but it depends on how strongly content drives ratings versus other contextual cues.

Option C: C & D
- C is the Pro-Castro speech written by an Anti-Castro writer.
- D is the Anti-Castro speech written by an Anti-Castro writer.
Under the no-FAE assumption, the content determines the attitude rating regardless of who wrote it. C and D convey opposite content (pro- vs anti-Castro), so their ratings should reflect those differing contents and would not necessarily be the same height unless there were no systematic effect of content difference. If the prompt suggests that avoiding FAE makes the two speeches’ perceived attitudes align when the content is the same, this pair would not be expected to be the same since the content differs between C and D (pro vs anti).

Option D: A & C
- A is Pro-Castro content by Pro-Castro writer.
- C is Pro-Castro content by Anti-Castro writer.
Both A and C share the same pro-Castro content, so under no FAE, the ratings should reflect the content and thus be similar. In that scenario, A and C would be expected to be close in height.

- Summary of reasoning for each option:
  - A & B: Content differences (pro vs anti) suggest different ratings; not inherently equal under no FAE.
  - B & D: Both involve anti-Castro content, but the writer’s orientation differs; without FAE, ratings should reflect content, potentially bringing them closer, but other contextual factors could still create differences.
  - C & D: Different content (pro vs anti) despite both writers being Anti-Castro in D and Anti-Castro in C’s writer; under no FAE, content dictates attitude, so these are not guaranteed to be equal.
  - A & C: Both share pro-Castro content; under no FAE, content drives the rating, so these two would be most expected to be similar in height.

- Note on variability: The exact height matching depends on how strictly observers’ ratings map onto content versus any residual influence from who wrote the speech. In classic FAEs, the mismatch between writer’s assignment and content leads to biased attributions; removing that bias (no FAE) should align ratings more with content similarity, which most clearly aligns A with C (both pro-Castro content) and B with D (both anti-Castro content).

- In short, if we consider the logic of the no-FAE scenario, the pair that best matches the idea of identical rating due to identical content is A & C (both pro-Castro content). Conversely, B & D share anti-Castro content and would be expected to align as well. However, the direct comparison asked in the question is which pair would be exactly the same height, and the arrangement of content suggests that A & C would be a natural pairing for equality under no FAE, with B & D also being a candidate for equality if the anti-Castro content dominates both.

Similar Questions

You hear that your neighbor's eight-year old son, Billy, was involved in a fight at recess. You don't know Billy very well, and, as you try to explain his behavior, you commit the Fundamental Attribution Error when you say __________________________________.

Vikas, who averages two touchdowns a game for his football team, did not score a touchdown in today’s game. The other players believe that he was “slacking off,” but in reality he was playing despite an injury. Vikas’ teammates have committed

When people commit the Fundamental Attribution Error when judging the behavior of others, they tend to overemphasize __ and underemphasize _.

Luke sees Gary sleeping at his desk in their 8am class and immediately thinks, "That guy must be lazy." Assuming that Luke is mistaken and doesn't realize that Gary has noisy neighbors keeping him awake all night, which bias is Luke most likely showing here?

The tendency for people to overemphasize personality and underestimate the situation when making attributions about others is referred to as

When a manager makes the attribution that an employee's lack of effort or ability is the reason for poor performance, they are probably making an error called:

Tim's new roommate Jaxon leaves dirty laundry all over his room, and Tim assumes Jaxon must be a slob. Tim ignores the fact that Jaxon is currently studying for finals and working 30 hours per week. Tim is demonstrating:

While driving down the freeway, Lucille assumes that the driver who cut her off while switching lanes is an inconsiderate person, without considering that the driver may have been rushing to the hospital after learning of a family member’s emergency. What has Lucille engaged in?

More Practical Tools for Students Powered by AI Study Helper

Homework AI Solver

Stylized AI Paper Writer

Plagiarism Checker Assistant

Citation AI Academic Writing Tool

In-Class Translation Assistant

AI Note Generator

AI Quiz Answers

Past Exam Questions from University Test Bank

Smart Practice Assistant

Adaptive Practice

Making Your Study Simpler