Third, personal attributions also dominate, because we have to do them to understand a situation. In other words, we cannot make a personal imputation (z.B. “Cejay is generous”) or a situational imputation (“Cejay tries to impress his friends”) until we have first identified the behavior as generous behavior (“Leaving this great council was a generous thing”). So, in the end, we start with personal imputation (“generous”) and it is only later that we try to correct or adapt our judgment (“Oh”, we think, “maybe it was really the situation that pushed him to do it”). Start by sketching your design on paper and testing this mockup with a few people, then continue testing your wireframes and prototypes. Botvin et al. (1992) conducted a popular study on the effects of false consensus in a particular youth community, to determine whether students have a higher degree of consensual false effects among their direct peers, as opposed to society as a whole.  Participants in this experiment were 203 students aged 18 to 25 (with an average age of 18.5 years). Participants were given a questionnaire and asked to answer questions on a wide range of social issues.
For each social theme, they were asked to respond to how they felt about the topic and estimate the percentage of their colleagues who would agree with them. The results showed that the False Consensus effect was extremely prevalent when participants described the rest of their academic community; Of the twenty topics considered, sixteen showed the False Consensus effect. The high False-Consensus effect observed in this study can be attributed to the study group; As participants were asked to compare themselves to a group of their peers they have permanently nearby (and who are themselves very similar), the False-Consensus effect multiplied.  Another important reason is that when we make attributions, we are not only interested in causality, but also often in responsibility. Fincham and Jaspers (1980) argued that not only do we behave like secular scientists and look for the causes of behavior, but we are often similar to secular lawyers who try to assign responsibilities. We want to know not only why something happened, but also who is responsible. Indeed, it is difficult to attribute the cause without claiming responsibility. If we attribute the furious explosion of a person to an internal factor such as an aggressive personality, unlike an external cause, as a stressful situation, in the first case we accuse this person implicitly or otherwise more than in the latter. Attribution and responsibility shed an interesting light on selfish bias. Perhaps we make external attributions for failure, in part because it is easier to blame others or the situation than we ourselves are.
In Baumeister, Stillwell, and Wotman`s (1990) victim-offender relationships, it may have been partly a matter of either releasing responsibility or attributing it. .