The Self-Serving Bias: Who Gets the Credit for Success – And Blame for Failure? (Not Just Football!)
By Dr Dawn H. Nicholson.
As the hopes and dreams of another England football team lie shattered after the World Cup semi-final defeat by Argentina, it’s worth reflecting on the immediate comments and reactions, which may offer valuable insights for those Business Psychologists working in the leadership space.
Whilst the recriminations and analysis will undoubtedly go on for some time, one quote stood out for me – that from the England coach, Thomas Tuchel. Mr Tuchel commented,
“We're disappointed, but we got too passive after we scored and conceded a lot of chances and could not turn the ball possession around”.
I may have been watching a different game last night, but from what I saw, it was Mr Tuchel’s decision to take off mid-field and attacking players and substitute them with defenders after England’s goal. And the outcome of that decision was – arguably – what we saw last night. Passive play ending in another heartbreak for England and their ever-hopeful fans.
Mr Tuchel’s words might demonstrate self-defence – but they might also demonstrate something else: the self-serving bias (Bradley, 1978; Heider, 1958; Miller & Ross, 1975; Shepperd, Malone, & Sweeny, 2008; Zuckerman, 1979).
The Self-Serving Bias
The self-serving bias is an established psychological phenomenon, where we are all more likely to take credit for team successes, whilst blaming others for team failures. We can see this phenomenon in everyday life, for example, the tendencies of politicians to attribute their team’s successes to their own actions, whilst blaming factors such as civil servants or the global economy for their failures. President Trump recently joked that his Vice President, JD Vance, would take the blame if diplomatic talks with Iran failed, saying,
“If it works, I take the credit. . . If it doesn’t work out, I’m blaming JD”.
Research also tells us that leaders could be more likely to demonstrate a self-serving bias because they are in positions of power. Previous research has found that being in a position of power gives leaders more freedom to act as they wish, encourages an inflated sense of self, and insulates leaders from threats. This suggests a potential interaction between power and the self-serving bias. And this is what research from Lammers & Burgman (2018) found. Across three studies, their research demonstrated that participants who experienced elevated power showed a stronger self-serving bias than lower power participants. This was the case irrespective of whether power was measured or manipulated: feelings of power led people to selectively attribute successes internally – i.e. to themselves, and failures externally – i.e. to others. This widened the strength of the observed self-serving bias.
These findings support a significant body of literature demonstrating the corruptive effects of power. Power can lead people to prioritise the self and relegate others to secondary and peripheral roles (Guinote, 2010; Inesi & Rios, 2013; Righetti et al., 2015; Rucker, Dubois, & Galinsky, 2011). The powerful place the self in a more central role when claiming success, but give it a more peripheral role when assigning responsibility for failure.
The Workplace Application
The interaction between the self-serving bias and power presents challenges for leaders in the workplace:
-
Without the ability to accurately understand and attribute the reasons behind their team’s successes and failures, how can leaders learn from them?
-
How can leaders prone to the self-serving bias lead their teams and organisations to greater successes in the future?
The challenge for Business Psychologists in this space is to support leaders in developing greater self-awareness and ensure workplaces are equipped with robust evaluation approaches, even for the most senior individuals in their organisation. This could help to mitigate the self-serving bias in leaders and, in turn, help leaders and organisations more accurately learn from their successes and failures.
For ABP Members:
Not a member? We invite you to join us at The Association for Business Psychology!
About the Author
Dr Dawn H. Nicholson is Vice Chair of The ABP and Head of University Accreditation, with almost three decades of HR and consulting experience and a PhD in Decision-Making Psychology. A Chartered Psychologist and ABP Fellow, she has led Business Psychology programmes at Kent and Arden universities and remains active in the Business Psychology industry. As Biz Psych Cup Lead, she champions collaboration between academia and business. Passionate about guardianship and growth of the field, Dawn works to raise standards, support emerging talent, and promote the value of Business Psychology. She also enjoys countryside walks with her two lively cocker spaniels.
Selected References
Bradley, G. W. (1978). Self-serving biases in the attribution process: A reexamination of the fact or fiction question. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 56–71. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.36.1.56
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York, NY: Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1037/10628-000
Lammers, J. and Burgmer, P. (2019), Power increases the self-serving bias in the attribution of collective successes and failures. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol., 49: 1087-1095. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2556
Miller, D. T., & Ross, M. (1975). Self-serving biases in the attribution of causality: Fact or fiction? Psychological Bulletin, 82, 213–225. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076486
Shepperd, J., Malone, W., & Sweeny, K. (2008). Exploring causes of the self-serving bias. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 895–908. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00078.x
Zuckerman, M. (1979). Attribution of success and failure revisited, or: The motivational bias is alive and well in attribution theory. Journal of Personality, 47, 245–287. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1979.tb00202.x