Abstract
After reading of an automobile accident in which the driver and/or bystanders either suffered or did not suffer, subjects rated the driver's responsibility for the accident and sentenced him to a jail term. The purpose of this experiment was to contrast three theoretical models: defensive attribution, moral salience, and equity. Results indicated that male subjects utilized an equity principle by relaxing their strictness of judgement, in terms of time sentenced to jail, when the accident perpetrator himself suffered harmful consequences. Females invoked a moral salience principle in that judgemental strictness increased only when bystanders were harmed. Regardless of sex, subjects expressed a preference for information regarding the personal characteristics of the accident perpetrator as contrasted with information about the environment. This finding was considered in relation to recent developments in attribution theory.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
