The fundamental attribution error

Have just read a very interesting and quite frankly disturbing article on the above mentioned hypothesis.  No time to edit this tonight but posting it anyway!

Sabini, Siempann and Stein (2001) question three 'taken as given' assumptions of social psychology and question them - in particular the fundamental attribution error (FAE).

The FAE is when a person acts in a certain way and 'you' then attribute this behaviour to an internal disposition, rather than to an external situational factor.  In other words we tend to underestimate the effect of the situation and over estimate internal factors.  

For example, in the Milgram experiments, people acted against their consciences because they were told to by a person in authority.  Despite not wanting to shock someone, they still did so.  In the Asch experiments people folded to peer pressure, and lied about how long a line was in order to conform to other group members.  And, in the Darley and Latane experiments people would not intervene in a bad situation if more than three bystanders were also not intervening.  E.g. a woman is being beaten up by a little guy (so no fear of you being hurt) but 'you' will not stop it as long as at least three people do not move to help.  Basically, all this research suggests that we (people) fold waaay quicker than we think we do.  The situation dictates not the internal disposition.

Now, if you are like me, you hate the idea of being lumped in with the participants of these experiements.  If it was us, we wouldn't have shocked the guy!  We would step in and help a person who needed it etc.  But, unless you have read Milgram's book this is ignorance.  Because every single other person thought the same thing and then FOLDED.  Actually, not everyone but way too many for use to be getting cocky about our own behaviour.  

But Sabini et al have a different interpretation and one I tend to agree with due to my studies.  They suggest that all these behaviours can be explained by internal dispositions.  In particular, the need to avoid embarrassment and to avoid losing face.  Sabini et al unpack the research and place this internal factor at the centre of each one, and make a case that this internal factor is the real key.  The internal factor is - Fear of embarrassment and of losing face. 

They conclude that Americans, known as the most non-mitigating people, are in fact more prone to embarrassment and fear of losing face than we have thought.

My thoughts are - heaven help the Kiwis then because we are way down the scale from the Americans.  

Study tip three: Test yourself, don't wreck yourself.


Rather than re-reading a text to retain information - test yourself on what you've already read.  It's a better use of your time.

This leads to deeper processing - more can be seen here in the most boring webinair that I did many years ago.  DON'T JUDGE ME. - it was my first one!  If you need some sleep this is the one.  Skip to 16:30 for a brief overview of Owens (2008) model for more on deep processing.  While my presentation is not great, the model is one I've continued to use for years in literacy.  And you only need to listen for about 60 seconds.

This testing yourself strategy really links with the literature on reading comprehension.  In fact, cognition and reading comprehension research domains are a classic example of two domains that overlap but very rarely cite each other.

Graeme Smith has a great overview here - well worth checking out.

The main point is - if you want to learn, you have to THINK, and thinking is a cognitive action - running your eyes over text doesn't count.  You have to actually do something with the content - testing yourself requires you engage in several mental actions.  Actually, ALL the comprehension strategies are simply codified ways of creating mental action.  The comprehension crowd get a bit pedantic about them being taught as distinct strategies - but for us meta-learners we know better.

Study tips - from cognitive research 

My sister is currently studying psychology and one of her papers is about cognition.  I have done a little work in this area and have found it sooo interesting and helpful in the area of learning and my particular domain - literacy and numeracy.

Anyway, she is deep into it and is sending me brief summaries of study tips fresh off the research train.  They are great so I'll post them here.  Thanks sis.

Study tip one: Memory pegging 
Memory pegging is a surface level learning technique that rocks.  Remember that the best learners select whether to engage in deep learning or surface learning based on a cost/benefit ratio.  If it's worth learning - go deep, elaborate and connect - if you need to recall facts either for recall or to elaborate on later, then attach target information to sequential mental objects.


Study tip two: free up working memory

Write down your worries before an exam, test, attending a meeting etc.  It frees up working memory for better recall.

Working memory is like your work table - if its all cluttered with other stuff there's no room for you to work.  Clear it.

Are you smarter than a 6 year old?

Gotta love these questions...  Apparently this problem is giving adults' headaches right across the internet.  It's an entry leveled child's question.  That should be the clue right there...  Good luck.  Oh - you only have 20 seconds :)

The question is - What is the number of the parking spot the car is parked in?


If you struggle go here.  It explains what may be the problem. 

Why it matters...

Into the deep. 

I spent 10 years tutoring adult learners in literacy and numeracy.  In that time, I can tell you, I witnessed some tragedies.  Stories and situations that break your heart.  

The tragedy usually comes down to a single theme.  People with dreams, ambitions and hopes that are snuffed away because they don't have the basic skills to either complete the qualifications or meet the demands of the workplace.

Many of us know the academic version - stats on a power point.  But how about the real face to face level.

For example:  

Imagine this real scenario I have experienced.  You have a meeting with a 22 year old woman, who since she was 14 has dreamed of working with children, and tell her that she will not be able to meet the basic demands of the ECE programme. Therefore, she is not being accepted onto the course,  She cries, and argues, gets mad, and blames you, and you feel like dirt.  But you know she would not have lasted the first round of assessments and would have wasted thousands of her dollars.

But, you set her on an interim literacy programme.  A pathway.  A hope.  She will spend six months improving her skills and then return.  Then with new skills she will get onto the programme.  

But I know, its probably not true.  She probably won't dramatically improve her skills.  Because the instruction will not be good enough, intense enough, or diagnostic enough.  And in the last 20 cases, the improvements weren't enough.  But there is nowhere else to send her. 

What about a young male learner - who comes to me after class with tears in his eyes because of the utter frustration at not being able to learn the algebra necessary for aspects of the course.  I know what he needs; one-on-one instruction, one hour a day for two months - I know that I could help him.  But I don't have time.  

Instead I introduce him to websites, resources and literacy services.  But I know, that that won't really help him, in this immediate point in time - which is when it counts.  He needs the knowledge now.

He leaves the course.

I have hundreds of these.  I could go on and on and on.  Piles of people unable to continue on their journey toward self fulfillment, reaching their potential - happiness?  And the bodies continue to pile up.

Here is a positive one:  A young chap in my class had just been released from prison (20 years old).  A likable guy, who was easily led.  He had never read a book, and never had a book read to him.  Could not read a word.  A friend of mine committed to working with him everyday.  Every day.

One day he looked particularly happy.  I asked what had been happening.  He said, that my friend and him (together) were reading 'Wild pork and watercress'.  "It's really good", this was the first thing I think he had ever 'really liked' that wasn't artificial.  The two of them spent weeks in that book.  They became good friends, and he made progress on his reading.  In fact they ended up going hunting together.

He learned to read.  He got a job.  Today he has a family - who he makes sure does their homework.  It happened because of buckets and buckets of help from people, but particularly one special guy who committed.  It took time, but damn if I don't look back and feel encouraged at that.

Unfortunately, if I add calculate the stories, one side outweighs the other.  And on the wrong side of the ledger.  

Soon, the Government, the TEC, and the Tertiary Sector are going to discuss the outcomes of international surveys, assessment results, economic inputs and outputs and make some decisions. Part of the decision will be made based on 'how it looks to the public', part by economics and part by a misinformed cost to benefit ratio.  The decision will be made by good people, but people who have never seen the tears - or understood the problem in the first place. 

But it doesn't actually matter because they all missed the point.

You see this is a very personal human problem, and the solution is personal and human.  Poor literacy and numeracy is no respecter of ethnicity, or of social class, or of gender, or of age.  It's equally damaging to all.    

It's a case by case personal issue.  The thinking from above is to improve systems, assess, fund, not fund, fund on performance, fund on credits, fund on assessment.  Never in my now 18 years in the sector, has this been the difference that made the difference.

No matter what happens however, the pile of bodies on one side of the ledger will keep growing. Because the answer is real people, making real relationships, with real commitment.  This cannot be produced by any funding model - and today; funding rules all.  What we need are people who care, and then train them until they are world class.  We need to pay them enough to allow them to stay doing what they are doing, as most leave to make up for the financial loss they have taken to do the work.         

So, in conclusion, why does literacy and numeracy matter?  Because it constrains an individual's ability to take part in the great human endevour - self determination and self improvement. To prevent this leads to a degradation of the human spirit.  

The slow death of literacy and numeracy

Haven't been posting much simply due to a lack of time.  I'm in the final stages of a PhD and a little under the gun.  However, I did think it was worth putting this out there following listening to a conversation between tutors and managers, and observing some worrying trends.

I'm worried that the adult literacy and numeracy domain is being nibbled away.  In a 'death by one thousand cuts' kind of way.

Literacy and numeracy is morphing into policy decrees, assessment, and qualifications.  One would think that gaining credits is the goal, rather than developing the ability to use literacy and numeracy to further one's agency in the world.

Question:  What will happen if this continues?

In my mind, four substantial changes will occur.  At which point L&N will be indistinguishable from general education.  To appear in part two!