NCJ Number
140828
Journal
International Journal of Psychology Volume: 27 Issue: 2 Dated: (April 1992) Pages: 157-180
Date Published
1992
Length
24 pages
Annotation
This article introduces a role-based model of responsibility attribution and its relevance to cultural differences, discusses "accounts" and indicates some of the ways in which they may be linked to particular roles, and summarizes results from two pilot studies of excuse-making conducted in Japan and the United States.
Abstract
In research on the attribution of responsibility, increasing attention is being given to responsibility judgments as social negotiations, not just the cognitions of isolated individuals. In this negotiating process, "accounts," including excuses and justifications, may diminish or even eliminate responsibility for wrongdoing. Recent literature on "accounts" emphasizes the way in which aspects of social roles, specifically the solidarity or closeness of the parties and their hierarchical or equal status, may influence the choice and effectiveness of "accounts." A second theme is the way in which the impact of various accounts may vary across cultures, specifically the United States and Japan. The discussion focuses on the differences between roles and cultures in the use of three "accounts:" denial ("I didn't do it"), consensus ("everyone does it"), and apology. The authors draw on pilot research conducted in the United States and Japan. In the first of these studies, students spontaneously generated excuses or justifications; in the second, they rated their likelihood of using certain "accounts" when confronted with possible responsibility for a bad outcome. Results indicate that solidarity, hierarchy, and culture each affected the use of "accounts," but sometimes in complex ways. The article concludes with speculations and suggestions about future cross-cultural research into the social psychology of attributing responsibility and offering "accounts." 4 tables, 34 references, and an article abstract in French