Actor observer difference
DESCRIPTION
The phenomenon where the attributed causes of an individual’s action(s) tend to systematically differ depending on whether one is the actor or an observer. More specifically, an observer tends to attribute an actor’s behavior to the actor’s inherent personality, whereas the actor tends to attribute his/her behavior to situational factors.
The phenomenon where the attributed causes of an individual’s action(s) tend to systematically differ depending on whether one is the actor or an observer. More specifically, an observer tends to attribute an actor’s behavior to the actor’s inherent personality, whereas the actor tends to attribute his/her behavior to situational factors.
KEY INSIGHTS
Based on pioneering research by Jones and Nisbett (1972), explanations for this observable phenomenon include the general fact that actors tend to have more action-related information available than observers; actors and observers have different motives in producing explanations for actions; and a tendency for actors and observers to differ in where they ultimately selectively attend to information concerning actions.
Based on pioneering research by Jones and Nisbett (1972), explanations for this observable phenomenon include the general fact that actors tend to have more action-related information available than observers; actors and observers have different motives in producing explanations for actions; and a tendency for actors and observers to differ in where they ultimately selectively attend to information concerning actions.
KEYWORDS Observers, actions, attitudes, attributions, sense making
IMPLICATIONS
As the actions of marketing managers and sales staff can sometimes be very visible to customers or others outside an organization (e.g. suppliers, business partners) as well as within the organization, the marketer should not assume that individuals observing his/her (or the company’s) action(s) will attribute the action(s) to the same causes as does the marketer him/herself. For example, a bystander at an airport observing a man being told by a ticketing agent that he is unable to check in for a scheduled airline flight because he is thirty seconds late in checking in relative to the airline’s policy of requiring check-ins a minimum of thirty minutes before departure may attribute the refusal in being allowed to check in to the ticketing agent’s insensitive, stubborn, and unsympathetic personality, whereas the ticketing agent may attribute the service encounter outcome to being told to enforce his company’s policy. While such an example illustrates the actor–observer difference on a relatively small scale, such difference may certainly be amplified on larger scales as when actions are strategic in nature (e.g. in interpreting motivations of an entire salesforce or in crucial negotiations with a potential business partner). Marketers should therefore seek to understand and perhaps even anticipate possible interpretations of marketing actions from stakeholding observer perspectives and reconcile them with their own perspectives in efforts to reduce misunderstandings that may lead to undesirable marketing outcomes (e.g. customer dissatisfaction, marketer mistrust).
As the actions of marketing managers and sales staff can sometimes be very visible to customers or others outside an organization (e.g. suppliers, business partners) as well as within the organization, the marketer should not assume that individuals observing his/her (or the company’s) action(s) will attribute the action(s) to the same causes as does the marketer him/herself. For example, a bystander at an airport observing a man being told by a ticketing agent that he is unable to check in for a scheduled airline flight because he is thirty seconds late in checking in relative to the airline’s policy of requiring check-ins a minimum of thirty minutes before departure may attribute the refusal in being allowed to check in to the ticketing agent’s insensitive, stubborn, and unsympathetic personality, whereas the ticketing agent may attribute the service encounter outcome to being told to enforce his company’s policy. While such an example illustrates the actor–observer difference on a relatively small scale, such difference may certainly be amplified on larger scales as when actions are strategic in nature (e.g. in interpreting motivations of an entire salesforce or in crucial negotiations with a potential business partner). Marketers should therefore seek to understand and perhaps even anticipate possible interpretations of marketing actions from stakeholding observer perspectives and reconcile them with their own perspectives in efforts to reduce misunderstandings that may lead to undesirable marketing outcomes (e.g. customer dissatisfaction, marketer mistrust).
APPLICATION AREAS AND FURTHER READINGS
Consumer Behavior
Folkes, Valerie S. (1988). ‘Recent Attribution Research in Consumer Behavior: A Review and New Directions,’ Journal of Consumer Research, 14(4), March, 548–565.
Folkes, Valerie S. (1988). ‘Recent Attribution Research in Consumer Behavior: A Review and New Directions,’ Journal of Consumer Research, 14(4), March, 548–565.
Marketing Management
Balakrishnan, P. V. (Sundar), Patton, Charles, and Lewis, Philip A. (1993). ‘Toward a Theory of Agenda Setting in Negotiations,’ Journal of Consumer Research, 19(4), March, 637–654.
Teas, R. Kenneth, and McElroy, James C. (1986). ‘Causal Attributions and Expectancy Estimates: A Framework for Understanding the Dynamics of Salesforce Motivation,’ Journal of Marketing, 50(1), January, 75–86.
Balakrishnan, P. V. (Sundar), Patton, Charles, and Lewis, Philip A. (1993). ‘Toward a Theory of Agenda Setting in Negotiations,’ Journal of Consumer Research, 19(4), March, 637–654.
Teas, R. Kenneth, and McElroy, James C. (1986). ‘Causal Attributions and Expectancy Estimates: A Framework for Understanding the Dynamics of Salesforce Motivation,’ Journal of Marketing, 50(1), January, 75–86.
Services Marketing
Van Raaij, Fred, and Pruyn, Ad Th. H. (1998). ‘Customer Control and Evaluation of Service Validity and Reliability,’ Psychology and Marketing, 15(8), 811–832.
Van Raaij, Fred, and Pruyn, Ad Th. H. (1998). ‘Customer Control and Evaluation of Service Validity and Reliability,’ Psychology and Marketing, 15(8), 811–832.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Jones, Edward E., and Nisbett, Richard E. (1972). ‘The Actor and the Observer: Divergent Perceptions of the Causes of Behavior,’ in Edward E. Jones et al. (eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the Causes of Behavior,Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press, 79–84.
Wagner, J. A., III, and Gooding, R. Z. (1997). ‘Equivocal Information and Attribution: An Investigation of Patterns of Managerial Sensemaking,’ Strategic Management Journal, 18(4), 275–286.
Jones, Edward E., and Nisbett, Richard E. (1972). ‘The Actor and the Observer: Divergent Perceptions of the Causes of Behavior,’ in Edward E. Jones et al. (eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the Causes of Behavior,Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press, 79–84.
Wagner, J. A., III, and Gooding, R. Z. (1997). ‘Equivocal Information and Attribution: An Investigation of Patterns of Managerial Sensemaking,’ Strategic Management Journal, 18(4), 275–286.
actual product see product levels