Group Attribution Error: How You Misunderstand People
“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.” ― Margaret Mead
MENTAL MODEL
The group attribution error is when we think the characteristics of an individual member reflect the whole group, or that a group’s decision reflects the preferences of each member. It’s an attribution bias. Rather than concentrating on individual’s behavior, you slap together group outcomes and form conclusions. It is natural. As an infant, you developed the ability to categorize by putting gender labels on people. Then you split them by skin color and background. Consequently, as an adult, you quickly form opinions about particular groups because that’s just the way your brain functions.
The bias can occur in relation to any trait: race, nationality, gender, religion, profession, social class, financial well-being. It also means we overlook unique traits, behaviors, and experiences of individuals within that group. Instead, we think the broad group characteristics to fit each individual within the group. Of course, this means we negate the complexity of each human we are assessing. It wouldn’t be wrong to say this cognitive bias is one of the main contributors to misunderstandings, relational conflicts, and unjust practices that harm social harmony.
An example is thinking that all lawyers are manipulative, surgeons are precise, mathematicians are geeky, and artists are eccentric. It functions both ways. If we know one manipulative lawyer, all lawyers seem so. If we are aware of a particular group of lawyers that were manipulative, the one lawyer we know must also be manipulative. The same applies for racial, ethnic, religious, and political stereotypes. One bad experience can skew our perception of the entire group. A poor strategic decision from a company can make observers assume that every executive within that firm is incompetent. In a classroom where the overall test scores are low, a teacher would incorrectly conclude that each student is a low-performer. A sports team could lose due to one poor strategic move, but all of the players get the blame.
Real-life examples of the group attribution error:
Corporate Decisions: a board of directors makes a decision. Their choice leads to a significant financial loss. Investors and the public may judge the entire committee harshly. They assume each one contributed equally to the failure. Despite some members having had little influence or dissenting opinions.
Political Party: a political party loses an election. They put forth a controversial policy. Voters generalize that all party members are automatically misinformed or ineffective. Individual contributions are disregarded. The complexity of political decision-making is not taken into account.
Education: a class performs poorly on a standardized test. The educators and outsiders conclude that every student in that class is underperforming. Factors like teaching methods or classroom dynamics are not considered.
Sports: a football team loses a crucial match. Fans and commentators quickly jump on the issue. They attribute the loss to the poor performance of all the players. There’s no room for recognizing specific strategic errors or external conditions that influenced the outcome it seems.
How you might use the group attribution error as a mental model: (1) see them solo — when assessing any group, look beyond the final outcome and examine the contribution of individuals, asking “Did each member have an equal say in this decision? What specific elements contributed to the group outcome?”; (2) question collective judgment — recognize that group decisions are the product of complex dynamics, and take into account alternative explanations like external pressures (e.g. sponsors for sports teams) and internal conflicts (e.g. fights between team members); (3) indicators, plural — when evaluating performance, use a variety of indicators instead of just a single outcome (e.g. peer reviews, individual achievements, objective performance metrics, historical data); (4) make everyone important — in your team, design a process that highlights individual contributions to see just how much work is done by each member and who is to “blame” for good results.