Influence of the Fundamental Attribution Error on Perceptions of Blame and Negligence
Abstract
Abstract. Automobile accidents are a frequent occurrence in the United States and commonly result in legal ramifications. Through a fundamental attribution error (FAE) framework (Ross, 1977), the current research examined how individuals perceive blame and negligence in these cases. In Study 1 (N = 360), we manipulated the driver (you vs. stranger) of a hypothetical accident scenario and the situational circumstances surrounding the accident (favorable vs. unfavorable). Supporting the FAE, individuals' situational blame attributions only varied as a function of situational circumstances when they themselves were hypothetically driving. However, neither the driver nor the situation significantly predicted dispositional blame attributions. Yet, Study 1 provided initial support for the importance of an individual's trait tendency to neglect situational constraints when making dispositional blame attributions. In Study 2 (N = 212), we again manipulated situational circumstances surrounding the hypothetical accident, but within the context of a mock civil trial. Results provided additional support for the importance of this trait tendency and expanded our findings of dispositional blame attributions to perceptions of negligence. Implications include the importance of considering trait individual differences in the likelihood to ignore situational demands when individuals are making legally relevant judgments about automobile accidents.
References
(2000). Culpable control and the psychology of blame. Psychological Bulletin, 126(4), 556–574. 10.1037/0033-2909.126.4.556
. (1965). Restatement of the law (second) torts. American Law Institute Publishers.
(1979). Self-monitoring and the actor-observer bias. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 9(2), 81–88.
(2011). Amazon's mechanical turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3–5. 10.1177/1745691610393980
. (2016, July). Motor vehicle crash deaths: How is the US doing? Center of Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/pdf/2016-07-vitalsigns.pdf
(2020). pwr: Basic functions for power analysis. R package version 1.3-0. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=pwr
(1988). Statistical power analysis for the social sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
(2009). Tort bench and jury trials in state courts, 2005. GPO.
(2005). Views from consumers next in line: The fundamental attribution error in a service setting. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33(2), 139–152. 10.1177/0092070304268627
(2000). Legal blame: How jurors think and talk about accidents. American Psychological Association.
(2021). Raw data for “Influence of the fundamental attribution error on perceptions of blame and negligence”. 10.15786/16548069
(1995). The correspondence bias. Psychological Bulletin, 117(1), 21–38. 10.1037/0033-2909.117.1.21
(2016). Hindsight bias and law. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 224(3), 190–203. 10.1027/2151-2604/a000253
(2004). Should we trust web-based studies? A comparative analysis of six preconceptions about internet questionnaires. American Psychologist, 59(2), 93–104. 10.1037/0003-066X.59.2.93
(1999). Juror judgments in civil cases: Hindsight effects on judgments of liability for punitive damages. Law and Human Behavior, 23(5), 597–614. 10.1023/A:1022352330466
(1991). Compensation for accidental injuries in the United States: Executive summary. RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/reports/R3999z1.html
(1981). A self-presentation approach to the fundamental attribution error: The norm of internality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40(4), 643–649. 10.1037/0022-3514.40.4.643
(1987). The actor and the observer: Divergent perceptions of the causes of behavior. In E. E. JonesD. E. KanouseH. H. KelleyR. E. NisbettS. ValinsB. Weiner (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior (pp. 79–94). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
(1986). Norm theory: Comparing reality to its alternatives. Psychological Review, 93(2), 136–153, 10.1037/0033-295X.93.2.136
(1995). Ex post ≠ ex ante: Determining liability in hindsight. Law and Human Behavior, 19(1), 89–104, 10.1007/BF01499075
(2004). The psychology of confessions: A review of the literature and issues. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5(2), 33–67, 10.1111/j.1529-1006.2004.00016.x
(1997). Coerced confessions and the jury: An experimental test of the “harmless error” rule. Law and Human Behavior, 21(1), 27–46, 10.1023/A:1024814009769
(1985). Confession evidence. In S. M. KassinL. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), The psychology of evidence and trial procedure (pp. 67–94). Sage.
(1996). Determinations of negligence and the hindsight bias. Law and Human Behavior, 20(5), 501–516, 10.1007/BF01499038
(2008). Individual differences in attitudes relevant to juror decision making: Development and validation of the pretrial juror attitude questionnaire (PJAQ). Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(8), 2010–2038. 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00378.x
(2014). Secondary confessions: The influence (or lack thereof) of incentive size and scientific expert testimony on jurors' perceptions of informant testimony. Law and Human Behavior, 38(6), 560–568, 10.1037/lhb0000106
(2006). The actor-observer asymmetry in attribution: A (surprising) meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 132(6), 895–919. 10.1037/0033-2909.132.6.895.supp
(2010). Predicting blame assignment in a case of negligent harm. Mind & Society, 9(1), 5–17, 10.1007/s11299-009-0064-3
(1977). Actors, observers, and the attribution process: Toward a reconceptualization. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13(1), 89–111. 10.1016/0022-1031(77)90016-6
(2018). Effects of judicial instructions and juror characteristics on interpretations of beyond reasonable doubt. Psychology, Crime & Law, 24(2), 117–133, 10.1080/1068316X.2017.1394461
(1988). Self-serving attributions for performance in naturalistic settings: A meta-analytic Review. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18(1), 3–22. 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1988.tb00001.x
. (2018, September). Summary of motor vehicle crashes: 2016 data. (Traffic Safety Facts. Report No. DOT HS 812 580). National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
. (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
(1982). Shortcomings in the attribution process: On the origins and maintenance of erroneous social assessments. In D. KahnemanP. SlovicA. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 129–152). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/cbo9780511809477.010
(1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 173–220). Academic Press. 10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60357-3
(2019). Considering forensic science: Individual differences, opposing expert testimony and juror decision making. Psychology, Crime & Law, 25(1), 23–49. 10.1080/1068316X.2018.1488976
(2018). Individual differences in correspondence bias: Measurement, consequences, and correction of biased interpersonal attributions. Management Science, 64(4), 1879–1910. 10.1287/mnsc.2016.2668
(1983). Towards a refinement of attribution concepts. In J. Jaspars, F. D. Fincham, & M. Hewstone (Eds.), Attribution theory and research: Conceptual, developmental, and social dimensions (pp. 37-62). Academic Press.
(1975). Actor vs observer: Attributions to behavior with positive or negative outcomes and empathy for the other role. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 11(3), 205–214. 10.1016/S0022-1031(75)80022-9
(2007). The fundamental attribution error in attributing fictional figures' characteristics to the actors. Media Psychology, 9(2), 331–345. 10.1080/15213260701286049
(2020). Playing a bad character but endorsing a good cause: Actor-character fundamental attribution error and persuasion. Communication Reports, 33(1), 1–13, 10.1080/08934215.2019.1691618
(1986). Measuring causal attributions for success and failure: A meta-analysis of the effects of question-wording style. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 7(1), 35–51. 10.1207/s15324834basp0701_3
(2018). WebPower: Basic and advanced statistical power analysis. R package version 0.5.2. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=WebPower
