Sometimes the actor–observer asymmetry is defined as the fundamental attribution error,[5] which is when people tend to explain behavior on the internal, personal characteristics rather than the external factors or situational influences.
Considerations of actor–observer differences can be found in other disciplines as well, such as philosophy (e.g. privileged access, incorrigibility), management studies, artificial intelligence, semiotics, anthropology, and political science.
Participants repeated the task saying what trait best matched for different people: their best friend, father, a famous news anchor, and themselves.
This provided evidence for actor-observer asymmetry because participants viewed other's personality traits as stable whereas their own as dependent on the situation.
Bertram Malle examined this entire literature in a meta-analysis, finding that, across 170 individual tests, the asymmetry practically did not exist.
When analyzing actor-observer asymmetry cross-culturally, it is important to understand if there are differences in how cultures make attributions.
However, a significant body of literature exists to support the idea that there are cross-cultural differences in the attribution process.
[20] More specifically, in an 1985 study by Cha & Nam, it was found that Korean individuals used more situationally-relevant information than Americans when making causal attributions.
[22] This variation may arise out of one's need to protect their self-esteem or confidence, but also illustrates the differences in cognition and perception between actors and observers.
If individualistic, collectivist, Eastern, or Western cultures do not emphasize situational and dispositional factors in the same manner, then they are not all equally susceptible to the actor-observer asymmetry.
At the same time, there is so much more cross-cultural variance that exists within the general categories of 'Eastern' and 'Western' cultures, which is why this perspective of this topic is deserving of significantly more attention and research.
The actor–observer asymmetry is often confused with the hypothesis of a self-serving bias in attribution — the claim that people choose explanations in a strategic way so as to make themselves appear in a more positive light.
The self-serving bias is often formulated as a complete reversal in actors' and observers' explanation tendencies as a function of positive or negative events.