An interesting psychological phenomenon is the tendency to ascribe stable attitudes to people rather than consider the context. I can only speak to where I’ve worked — the UK, US, Canada — but it seems pervasive to me. Seeing the big picture behind people’s attitudes is important.
Inferring Attitudes Despite Writer Having No Choice
Early research was by Jones and Harris in 1967. Students rated essays praising or criticizing Fidel Castro’s Cuba. Some students were told the writer was instructed to take the position they did. The writers had to support or criticize Castro. The students then guessed the writer’s true feelings about Castro. The key thing is that the writer was told the position to take. If they had been told to praise Castro and praised Castro we can certainly conclude they are able to follow instructions. We can’t conclude too much else. Yet, students consistently thought the writer’s praise revealed the writer’s true feelings.
The students showed “a tendency to attribute attitude in line with behavior, even in the no choice context” (Jones and Harris, 1967, Abstract).
Choice Context Did Matter A Bit
The choice context did matter a bit. Knowing writers had to support Castro did change inferences a little. This lowered estimates of positive feelings towards Castro. The point is that the reduction was just not enough.
Inferring attitudes from “forced” behaviors seems common in business. Accountants must be boring because they worry about coding expenses. If, however, you are paid to do accounts you really must worry about coding. It is your job to worry about coding. This is even if you’d rather be writing poetry. Sure there is self-selection — those who really hate coding may leave accountancy — but we rarely adjust enough for what people “have to say”.
Seeing The Big Picture Behind People’s Attitudes
Taking it further we tend to attribute good outcomes to “good people” and bad outcomes to “bad people” and not the complex interaction of numerous events. A successful CEO may have some admirable qualities but almost certainly has benefited from a lot of fortunate events. Another CEO you think is rubbish probably has some admirable qualities. Yet they also have suffered poor luck. At a day-to-day level the person enforcing ridiculous rules may also disagree with the silly rules. They may still feel compelled to enforce them. Trying to see the choice context facing the person you are dealing with might help you conclude they aren’t necessarily evil or stupid.
For more classic psychological experiments see here and here.
Read: Edward E. Jones and Victor A. Harris, 1967, The Attribution of Attitudes, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 3 1-24