Who is Responsible? Toward a Social Psychology of Responsibility Attribution

Abstract

The currently dominant psychological model of responsibility attribution is criticized and expanded upon from a sociological perspective. It is argued that responsibility judgments entail consideration of both what the actor did and what the actor was supposed to do: i.e., both physical deeds and social roles. Including roles in a responsibility attribution model provides: (I) a coherent account of alternative meanings of responsibility itself; (2) a social psychological approach that is congruent with rules actually followed in adult sanctioning judgments; and (3) an opportunity for social psychologists to study the crucial dichotomy of authoritative versus subordinate roles. Roles are interpreted attributionally as normative contexts within which actions are evaluated, rather than as external or situational constraints on action. In general, it is suggested that accepting a role demand as normative may evoke a purposive attribution process, labeled here as ' 'motive grammar''; rejecting the role demand may be accompanied by a causal attribution process, consequence grammar. The paper concludes with suggestions for future research possibilities.