We tend to judge our own mistakes as products of circumstance: traffic made us late, the system crashed, we didn't have enough information. But when someone else drops the ball, we're quick to label them careless, incompetent, or unreliable.
This double standard shapes nearly every decision we make about who to trust, what risks to take, and which problems deserve our attention.
This pattern is called the fundamental attribution error, and research suggests we consistently attribute others' actions to their character while explaining our own behavior through external factors. When we're solving problems or making decisions, this bias quietly distorts our judgment in ways that compound over time.
Consider how this plays out when we're evaluating options.
We see someone's failed project and conclude they lack competence, so we dismiss their new proposal without considering that budget cuts or shifting priorities might have derailed their earlier work.
We watch a colleague struggle with a deadline and assume they're disorganized, never asking whether they're juggling a family crisis or covering for someone else's absence.
The stakes get higher when we're making consequential choices. Behavioral science research summarized by The Decision Lab shows that even when people know someone was instructed to take a particular position, they still believe that position reflects the person's true views.
We see the surface behavior and construct an entire narrative about who someone is, then make decisions based on that incomplete story.
This matters because problem-solving requires accurate assessment. When we misdiagnose why something went wrong - blaming character instead of circumstances - we solve for the wrong thing. We replace people when we should fix systems. We avoid collaboration with capable people because we've written them off based on one bad outcome.
Now that we’re able to recognize this, here is how to leverage it:
Before making a decision based on someone's behavior, pause and ask what situational factors you might be missing.
When a vendor misses a deadline, consider supply chain issues or staffing problems before concluding they're unreliable. When someone gives you pushback on an idea, explore whether they're working with different information rather than assuming they're difficult.
Apply the same scrutiny to your own judgments that you naturally apply to your own actions. You already know your mistakes have context, extend that same assumption to others. When evaluating past decisions, look for patterns in circumstances, not just patterns in people.
Try this in your next problem-solving session: list the situational factors that might explain the issue before listing character explanations. You'll often find the real problem lives in the circumstances, not the people.
The shift changes what you pay attention to and what you're willing to reconsider.
Did this resonate with you? Forward it on to someone who could use it too. These insights are better when shared.
Cheers,
Alex
Disclaimer: I'm a curious researcher, not a licensed psychologist. I study these concepts because I believe understanding how our minds work can help us navigate life more effectively. This content is for educational purposes only and should not replace professional advice. Please consult qualified professionals for personal guidance. Individual results may vary, and readers should use their own judgment when applying these concepts.