(Sorry, I wasn't reading the instructions carefully and wasn't posting on my name, these are the previous two posts assigned with their corresponding dates)
The fundamental attribution theory, or as the authors of the article refer to it as, "correspondence bias" is a natural sort of premonition we have of the manner in which a person will act, with an explanation of why it occurred in the circumstances it did. This remains a perplexing topic in psychology, as it was in the year this article was written in 1995, and despite the changing times, people still maintain a correspondence bias. If a person behaves in a specific manner, others are conditioned to believe that person acted in that way because they have already categorized that person. In theory, or as the authors state in the abstract, people claim to note the situation that the person they are assuming to execute a specific behavior in can affect the outcome of that action, though later in the article, most people only say this in theory, but do not practice it themselves.
Why would people, for the sake of credible article, lie? It's not exactly lying, as much as the subconscious is indicative of a person's actual thoughts and deludes them from what they're actually thinking. As demonstrated in class last week, a woman that came up with a test to determine bias, found herself to be prejudice against women in the workplace. She was creating the test in order to eliminate bias by having people identify it, and found herself to be a culprit as well. Why the fundamental attribution theory remains a theory is because people are not as they act. They are driven by both physical (external) and psychological (internal) forces that cause people to act in a way they do not necessarily believe to be right, or harbor feelings in their subconscious, that they are in fact unaware of.