Political Trust and the Ultimate Attribution Error in Explaining Successful and Failed Policy Initiatives

Abstract

This study examines how the ultimate attribution error (group attribution bias) plays out in the interaction between trust/distrust in a political actor and the success or failure of the actor’s proposed policy initiative. We conducted an experiment where student participants ( n = 222) from Latvian universities evaluated reasons for the success versus failure of a policy initiative proposed by a trusted versus untrusted political party in terms of the perceived benevolence, competence, and integrity of the political party as dispositional factors contributing to the initiative’s outcome, or external circumstances not under the political party’s control. The results showed evidence of the ultimate attribution error in the participants’ answers. The success of a policy initiative was explained more in terms of positive dispositions of the authoring party when the initiative came from a trusted political party than when it came from a distrusted party, and an initiative’s failure was explained more in terms of a lack of these positive dispositions when the initiative came from a distrusted party. There were no indications of the ultimate attribution error when explaining an initiative’s success or failure by external factors not controlled by the party authoring the initiative. The results provide additional insight into how the mechanisms of intergroup attribution play out in the context of political trust and may influence both overall trust in political actors and the evaluation of specific policy initiatives authored by these actors.