Propensity to Sue in England and the United States of America: The Role of Attribution Processes. A Comment on Kritzer

Abstract

In the mid 1970s, the Oxford Centre for Socio-Legal Studies conducted a large-scale empirical study of systems of compensation for illness and injury in England and Wales the 'Oxford study' referred to by Kritzer.1 As part of the Oxford research team, my interests were close to Kritzer's concerns in his paper, namely, accident victims' attributions of fault for their accidents; and how their attributions related to their views that they should be compensated and to their decisions to bring a claim. In a chapter that Kritzer cites,2 I argue, amongst other things, that when people attribute fault to the person they claim against, we cannot conclude that their attributions of fault have led to their decision to bring a claim. Instead, I suggest, the prospect or process of claiming may have led to the attributions of fault. In other words, some attributions of fault are justifications rather than reasons for claiming compensation. Kritzer's reference to this conclusion might leave the impression that I propose somewhat cynically that attributions of fault are always 'just a rationalization' (p. 408) resulting from 'desire for compensation' (p. 418).3 I appreciate the opportunity to detail a little further my approach and conclusions from the Oxford study, and where I believe Kritzer and I differ.