Dog Bites Boy: Judgments of Blame and Shame

Abstract

Separate samples of undergraduates read matched stories about a dog or a boy actor biting a child; others read about a dog or a boy playing with a child. Rating scales were used to obtain evaluations of these outcomes, and estimates of an actor's intent, volition, and excuse for its behavior. In addition, blameworthiness and impressions of actors' felt shame were assessed for biting; as was praiseworthiness for playing. Clear evidence for more leniency and generosity toward the dog compared with the boy was obtained. For the dog, the bite outcome was evaluated as less negative; and the animal's intent, volition, blame, and felt shame were rated lower. Further, the dog was granted more excuse for biting than was the boy. Concerning play, the dog-related outcome was seen as more positive and praiseworthy. These findings are discussed in terms of attribution theory, and with reference to the issue of underreported bites from owned animals.