Motivational biases in the attribution of responsibility for an accident: A meta-analysis of the defensive-attribution hypothesis.

Abstract

Wake Forest University Research concerned with motivational distortion in the attribution of responsibility for an accident is reviewed. The results of a statistical combination of 22 relevant studies suggest a statistically significant but weak tendency to attribute more responsibility to an accident perpetrator for a severe than for a mild accident. An examination of interacting variables found, consistent with Shaver's defensive-attribution hypothesis, that when observers were personally and situationally similar to the accident perpetrator, they tended to attribute less responsibility to the perpetrator when accident severity increased. The opposite was found to be the case when the perceiver and the perpetrator were dissimilar. Experiments using stronger subject-involving manipulations also appeared more likely to produce evidence in support of the defensive-attribution hypothesis than did experiments with low-involvernent manipulations. The relationship between this model and other theoretical and conceptual approaches is discussed, and recommendations for future research are suggested. It is concluded that research strongly supports the defensive-attribution hypothesis when the similarity variables are considered, and that this effect represents one example of how perceivers' self-protective motives influence responsibility attributions.