Abstract:A considerable literature on attribution theory has shown that healthy individuals exhibit a positivity bias when inferring the causes of evaluative feedback on their performance. They tend to attribute positive feedback internally (e.g., to their own abilities) but negative feedback externally (e.g., to environmental factors). However, all empirical demonstrations of this bias suffer from at least one of the three following drawbacks: First, participants directly judge explicit causes for their performance. Second, participants have to imagine events instead of experiencing them. Third, participants assess their performance only after receiving feedback and thus differences in baseline assessments cannot be excluded. It is therefore unclear whether the classically reported positivity bias generalizes to setups without these drawbacks. Here, we aimed at establishing the relevance of attributions for decision-making by showing an attribution-related positivity bias in a decision-making task. We developed a novel task, which allowed us to test how participants changed their evaluations in response to positive and negative feedback about performance. Specifically, we used videos of actors expressing different facial emotional expressions. Participants were first asked to evaluate the actors' credibility in expressing a particular emotion. After this initial rating, participants performed an emotion recognition task and did--or did not--receive feedback on their veridical performance. Finally, participants re-rated the actors' credibility, which provided a measure of how they changed their evaluations after feedback. Attribution theory predicts that participants change their evaluations of the actors' credibility toward the positive after receiving positive performance feedback and toward the negative after negative performance feedback. Our results were in line with this prediction. A control condition without feedback showed that correct or incorrect performance alone could not explain the observed positivity bias. Furthermore, participants' behavior in our task was linked to the most widely used measure of attribution style. In sum, our findings suggest that positive and negative performance feedback influences the evaluation of task-related stimuli, as predicted by attribution theory. Therefore, our study points to the relevance of attribution theory for feedback processing in decision-making and provides a novel outlook for decision-making biases.

What to Blame? Self-Serving Attribution Bias with Multi-Dimensional Uncertainty

Paranoia, self-deception and overconfidence

On Blame Attribution for Accountable Multi-Agent Sequential Decision Making

Disappearance of Self-Serving Bias: Reward Positivity Reflects Performance Monitoring Modulated by Responsibility Attribution in a Two-Person Cooperative Task.

Attribution of success and failure revisited, or: The motivational bias is alive and well in attribution theory

Learning with misattribution of reference dependence

Immune to Situation: The Self-Serving Bias in Unambiguous Contexts.

The contribution of sensory information asymmetry and bias of attribution to egocentric tendencies in effort comparison tasks

Rationally misplaced confidence

Prior expectations about own abilities bias self-belief formation and hinder subsequent revision

Overconfidence and Prejudice

Self-serving Regret: Experimental Evidence from a Reciprocity Game

Belief Bias Identification

Culpable Control and Counterfactual Reasoning in the Psychology of Blame

Performance Feedback Processing Is Positively Biased As Predicted by Attribution Theory

Confirmation bias emerges from an approximation to Bayesian reasoning

Mediation by Manipulating Attribution: Bayesian Persuasion in Ultimatum Games

Core Self-Evaluations, Self-Leadership, and the Self-Serving Bias in Managerial Decision Making: A Laboratory Experiment

Actual and counterfactual effort contribute to responsibility attributions in collaborative tasks

The Fundamental Attribution Error in Human-Robot Interaction: An Experimental Investigation on Attributing Responsibility to a Social Robot for Its Pre-Programmed Behavior

The Duet of Representations and How Explanations Exacerbate It