An Analysis of Correspondence Bias in Cross-Cultural Settings

This essay investigates correspondence bias through a cross-cultural lens, specifically comparing Malaysian and Australian cultures. It explores how individuals attribute behaviors to internal dispositions versus external situational factors. The study examines the application of correspondence bias theory, discussing relevant paradigms like attitude attribution and quiz roles, and considers how cultural backgrounds influence these biases. The essay analyzes prior research on cultural differences in attribution, highlighting the contrasting cultural values of Malaysia and Australia, and hypothesizes differences in correspondence bias between the two countries. The results, however, found no significant cross-cultural bias, leading to a discussion on the limitations of the study, including sample diversity and the impact of situational factors. The essay concludes by suggesting future research directions, such as considering diversified ethnic groups and genetic factors to study the effect of correspondence bias with an aggregate basis, and the role of cognitive abilities and psychological traits in explaining cross-cultural variations in correspondence bias.

Introduction
The most debatable issue of society and the most searched issue of the humanity; in recent years
is person-perception literature by Gilbert & Malone (1995). The theory evaluates temperamental
qualities of human behavior. Constrained behavior is the inclination of human character for the
obvious actions in presence of another human character. Constrained behavior can be revealed
by a true mind-set during the composition of an article with pro or anti point of view for a certain
piece of writing. Perception about a situation or a person comes from senses of the body,
expectations from life and other external factors. Stimulating the mind to study a subject due to a
certain reaction is a common attribute; the phenomenon is also universal in nature. Personal
traits, psychological features help a human mind to recognize the external qualities of another
person (Zengel, B., 2017). The tendency to explain behavior of the others, generally by drawing
conclusion based on dispositional attributes of the subject irrespective of peripheral or situational
conditions leads to contained behavior. An internal natural attribution is a spontaneous incident,
but correspondence bias gets generated if this process does not get rectified for external or
situational grounds. Taking the right foot forward by assessing others based on peripheral
situations can minimize the initial effect of the biasness. Previous knowledge of adverse behavior
sometimes affects the overall decision and the chance of rectification fades away. Several
theories have been developed for the analysis of situational behavior of human mind. Earlier in a
study by Choi & Markus (1998) it got revealed that casual ascription for Asian and American
were completely different.
Internal and external are two types of ascription as pointed by Heider (1958). People are inclined
to elucidate behavior of others in terms of internal or dispositional attributes, rather than external

or situational attributes. This nature of bias is called correspondence bias (book and Koenig). The
two common paradigms in correspondence bias are attitude attribution paradigm as enlightened
by Jones and Harris in 1967. Participants expressed their opinion on Fidel Castro, the Prime
Minister of Cuba either by praising or by critically abusing. This way they created their
attributions towards the writer (Koenig and Dean, 2010). The second type of exemplar was a
quiz role where the quiz was based on the study of Ross, Amabile and Steinmetz (1977).
Participants anonymous to each other were arbitrarily assigned as questioner, answerer and
observer. Universality of the theory for correspondence bias was the major achievement since it
considered cultural contrast as an ingredient.
Prior research work has also established the fact that association between human personality
structure and personality traits is universal (Alik, 2002). It was hypothesized that mutual
surroundings had no effect no individualism; impact of inherent traits was negligible in nature
(Eysenck, 1990). The five factor model generalized the cross cultural study; a general conception
for people around the globe was established (McCrae and Costa, 1997).
The cultural insights of Malaysia reflect that people staying in that country is happy with the
social hierarchy and do not propose for any modification. Leadership challenges are not at all
greeted with pleasure and the society is overall happy with inherent impartiality. Relationship is
the most important pillar of the Malaysian culture, irrespective of family or office affairs. People
care for others and they learn these values from childhood. Due to importance of profound
relationship people generally stay in relaxed manner and deviation from the rules is not
considered heinous. Peace and self-control are the two major ingredients which injects respect
for history and traditions (Pekerti, A. A., & Arli, D., 2017). Self containment provides happiness
to the people of this culture, and naturally creates optimistic views towards life. Along with

materialistic well being, enjoyment through spare time with near and dear ones reflects the
strong cultural orientation of the society.
Australian society is more inclined towards opportunist hierarchy system, where employee and
employers share a casual but direct relationship. Nature of the people is highly individualistic,
and they prefer to stay in small and closed family group. Unlike Malaysian culture, work place
atmosphere is not relaxed, rather merit based. Australians are more success bound race and
masculine nature of society is the reflection of that. Due to their aggressiveness in nature,
Australians like to deal with uncertainty in a positive manner. Countrymen are also apt towards
speedy result and do have little inclination to bank money for the future. The country, with its
developed economy offers ample opportunity to its residents for utilizing the leisure time on
vacations.
In the current study Malaysian culture and Australian cultures were put side by side. The
Malaysian culture is more inclined towards Asian ethnicity whereas Australian culture resembles
primarily with Western culture. Asian culture is more inclined towards favor situational
elucidations rather than dispositional behaviors (Morris & Peng, 1994). This inclination is not
only narrowed to human aspect, but mammal behaviors are also explained by peripheral
circumstances, not by the instinct as explained by Lee at al. (1996).
Malaysia has a communalist and mutually dependent background. Australia has a self-
determining and individualistic culture as shown by Bochner (1994). In relation to earlier
studies, a higher level of correspondence bias was predicted for people for the two countries,
Malaysia and Australia. It was hypothesized that there was significant level of difference in
correspondence bias due to cross cultural diversity of the two countries.

Discussion
The outcome of the experiment reflected no cross cultural biasness for Malaysian and Australian
people. The hypothetical view about the contrast in correspondence bias of two countries due to
their distinct and unique culture was refuted by the results. This established the fact that
crosswise over members, examiners were more educated than answerers. Absence of critical
communication by culture, confirmed that no dissimilarity was there in correspondence
predisposition by the two societies. Similarly no significant primary impact of culture was
observed and it represented that there was no critical contrast by culture in the evaluations of
examiner’s and answerer's learning. The average knowledge scores of the participants revealed it
all. Result of the analysis of the variances was in favor of the theory of independence of cross
cultural effect on correspondence biasness. The results were in line with the results of Krull et al.
(1999) where perceivers did not succeed in front of the questioners knowledge, and the
questioner were proved to be more intelligent than answerer.
The division of the study population in three categories created the insignificant nature of the
results. The answerer, observer and questioner were divided randomly and this created a normal
trend of the data, where the situational conditions and genetic diversity were overlooked. Non
probability sampling was probably a better choice when various attributes of the people are
studied. In an arbitrary selection the cultural background, language proficiency and peripheral
circumstances were ignored (de Oliveira, S., & Nisbett, R. E., 2017). The age group of the
participants was based on the university students. Therefore broader sample was not chosen for
the study and cultural along with genetic variation of the genders got nullified since equal
number of male and females in the sample of the study.

The culture– level factor examination of identity qualities has uncovered just humble deviations
from the individual– level factor structure (McCrae, 2001; 2002). This appears to show that if the
culture– level collection includes anything that goes past inter individual variety then it is
generally humble in its size.
The cross cultural studies normally compared Eastern and Western cultures due to diverse and
contrasting nature of the cultures (Allik, J., 2005). While comparing, various languages spoken,
age old traditions, history of the civilizations and political scenarios were considered as main
aspects of study. From earlier research works it can also be inculcated that Eastern cultures
(Malaysian culture in the current study) contribute to collective aspects of cultural orientations,
whereas, the Western culture (Australian culture for current study) is inclined towards individual
charisma. The comparative study of the two cultures also expressed that instead of indifference
in thought process or behavior of an individual, the collective psychology or cultural platform
becomes dissimilar (Kitayama et al., 1997).
There are many instances where two cultures have been compared for cross cultural similarities
and differences (Carlota & del Pilar, 2002). But only a few significant universal dataset were
available for statistically meaningful comparison until 2004, when a methodical pattern of
personality trait distribution was observed (Allik & McCrae, 2004). The geographical diversity
was discovered to be the primary reason for different style of answer pattern for individuality
questionnaires. Biological multiplicity and genetic structuring were considered as the key
reasons for cross cultural distances.
With increasing number cultures and related studies it has become easier to analyse the cultures
individually. Hofstede identified these dimensions of different cultures and pointed out the entire

process as “ecological factors” (Hofstede, 1983). Other than gender and age, various parameters
were prescribed to find the correlation between cultures at different geographical locations.
Aggregate cultural analysis, as prescribed in the Hofstede model may or may not reflect the exact
correlation between two cultures compared to individual interactive investigation (Ostroff,
1993). Ground level investigation on the effect of restrictions and mutually exclusive genetic
parameters of different cultures on extraversion found that, correspondence bias for cross
cultural diversities can hardly be analyzed from personality traits such as talkativeness or
happiness (McCare, 2002). Deviation of individual level factor analysis from aggregate culture
level factor analysis was observed for cross cultural study, but the deviation in results was
statistically inadequate in nature to be identified (McCare, 2002).
The future scope of the entire process of the experiment with consideration of diversified ethnic
groups was bright. Consideration of peripheral situation and various genetic orders of the
participants will help to study the effect on correspondence bias with an aggregate basis.
Unequal mixing of gender and age group will create a heterogeneous population in nature, which
in turn will help to analyse the cross cultural effect in an unbiased way. Again if the both the
nonconformist and collectivists group agree on the fact that questioner is more intellectual than
contestant, and then support of correspondence bias will get generated.
According to Morris & Peng (1994) socialist cultures do not prefer dispositional rationalization,
but according to Masuda & Kitayama (1996) prevalent correspondence bias exists among cross
cultures. Therefore the current model along with cognitive abilities and psychological traits can
explain the cross cultural role in correspondence biasness.

References
Allik, J. (2005). Personality dimensions across cultures. Journal of personality disorders, 19(3),
212-232.
Allik, J., & McCrae, R. R. (2004). Toward a geography of personality traits: Patterns of profiles
across 36 cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35(1), 13-28.
Bochner, S. (1994). Cross-cultural differences in the self concept: A test of Hofstede's
individualism/collectivism distinction. Journal of cross-cultural psychology, 25(2), 273-
283.
De Oliveira, S., & Nisbett, R. E. (2017). Culture Changes How We Think About Thinking: From
“Human Inference” to “Geography of Thought”. Perspectives on Psychological
Science, 12(5), 782-790.
Koenig, A. M., & Dean, K. K. (2010). and Similarities in Attribution. Cross-cultural psychology:
Contemporary themes and perspectives, 475.
Krull, D. S., Loy, M. H. M., Lin, J., Wang, C. F., Chen, S., & Zhao, X. (1999). The fundamental
attribution error: Correspondence bias in individualist and collectivist
cultures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(10), 1208-1219.
Kitayama, S., Duffy, S., Kawamura, T., & Larsen, J. T. (2003). Perceiving an object and its
context in different cultures: A cultural look at new look. Psychological science, 14(3),
201-206.

Miyamoto, Y., & Kitayama, S. (2002). Cultural variation in correspondence bias: The critical
role of attitude diagnosticity of socially constrained behavior. Journal of personality and
social psychology, 83(5), 1239.
Maakip, I., Keegel, T., & Oakman, J. (2017). Predictors of musculoskeletal discomfort: A cross-
cultural comparison between Malaysian and Australian office workers. Applied
ergonomics, 60, 52-57.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa Jr, P. T. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human
universal. American psychologist, 52(5), 509.
Pekerti, A. A., & Arli, D. (2017). Do cultural and generational cohorts matter to ideologies and
consumer ethics? A comparative study of Australians, Indonesians, and Indonesian
Migrants in Australia. Journal of Business Ethics, 143(2), 387-404.
Zengel, B., Ambler, J. K., McCarthy, R. J., & Skowronski, J. J. (2017). Spontaneous trait
inference and spontaneous trait transference are both unaffected by prior evaluations of
informants. The Journal of social psychology, 157(3), 382-387.

Appendix