基本归因错误对过失和过失认知的影响。

IF 1.1 4区 心理学 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Experimental psychology Pub Date : 2021-07-01 DOI:10.1027/1618-3169/a000526
Cassandra Flick, Kimberly Schweitzer
{"title":"基本归因错误对过失和过失认知的影响。","authors":"Cassandra Flick,&nbsp;Kimberly Schweitzer","doi":"10.1027/1618-3169/a000526","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b></b> Automobile accidents are a frequent occurrence in the United States and commonly result in legal ramifications. Through a fundamental attribution error (FAE) framework (Ross, 1977), the current research examined how individuals perceive blame and negligence in these cases. In Study 1 (<i>N</i> = 360), we manipulated the driver (you vs. stranger) of a hypothetical accident scenario and the situational circumstances surrounding the accident (favorable vs. unfavorable). Supporting the FAE, individuals' situational blame attributions only varied as a function of situational circumstances when they themselves were hypothetically driving. However, neither the driver nor the situation significantly predicted dispositional blame attributions. Yet, Study 1 provided initial support for the importance of an individual's trait tendency to neglect situational constraints when making dispositional blame attributions. In Study 2 (<i>N</i> = 212), we again manipulated situational circumstances surrounding the hypothetical accident, but within the context of a mock civil trial. Results provided additional support for the importance of this trait tendency and expanded our findings of dispositional blame attributions to perceptions of negligence. Implications include the importance of considering trait individual differences in the likelihood to ignore situational demands when individuals are making legally relevant judgments about automobile accidents.</p>","PeriodicalId":12173,"journal":{"name":"Experimental psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Influence of the Fundamental Attribution Error on Perceptions of Blame and Negligence.\",\"authors\":\"Cassandra Flick,&nbsp;Kimberly Schweitzer\",\"doi\":\"10.1027/1618-3169/a000526\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b></b> Automobile accidents are a frequent occurrence in the United States and commonly result in legal ramifications. Through a fundamental attribution error (FAE) framework (Ross, 1977), the current research examined how individuals perceive blame and negligence in these cases. In Study 1 (<i>N</i> = 360), we manipulated the driver (you vs. stranger) of a hypothetical accident scenario and the situational circumstances surrounding the accident (favorable vs. unfavorable). Supporting the FAE, individuals' situational blame attributions only varied as a function of situational circumstances when they themselves were hypothetically driving. However, neither the driver nor the situation significantly predicted dispositional blame attributions. Yet, Study 1 provided initial support for the importance of an individual's trait tendency to neglect situational constraints when making dispositional blame attributions. In Study 2 (<i>N</i> = 212), we again manipulated situational circumstances surrounding the hypothetical accident, but within the context of a mock civil trial. Results provided additional support for the importance of this trait tendency and expanded our findings of dispositional blame attributions to perceptions of negligence. Implications include the importance of considering trait individual differences in the likelihood to ignore situational demands when individuals are making legally relevant judgments about automobile accidents.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12173,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Experimental psychology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Experimental psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000526\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Experimental psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000526","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

汽车事故在美国经常发生,通常会导致法律后果。通过基本归因错误(FAE)框架(Ross, 1977),目前的研究考察了在这些情况下个体是如何感知责备和疏忽的。在研究1 (N = 360)中,我们操纵了假设事故场景中的驾驶员(你vs陌生人)和事故周围的情景环境(有利vs不利)。支持FAE理论的是,只有当他们自己在假设驾驶时,个人的情境责备归因才会随着情境的变化而变化。然而,无论是司机还是情境都不能显著地预测性格责备归因。然而,研究1初步支持了个体在进行性格归因时忽视情境约束的特质倾向的重要性。在研究2 (N = 212)中,我们再次操纵了围绕假设事故的情境,但在模拟民事审判的背景下。结果为这种特质倾向的重要性提供了额外的支持,并扩展了我们的发现,即性格归咎于疏忽的感知。其中的含义包括,当个体对汽车事故做出法律相关判断时,在忽视情境要求的可能性方面,考虑个体特质差异的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Influence of the Fundamental Attribution Error on Perceptions of Blame and Negligence.

Automobile accidents are a frequent occurrence in the United States and commonly result in legal ramifications. Through a fundamental attribution error (FAE) framework (Ross, 1977), the current research examined how individuals perceive blame and negligence in these cases. In Study 1 (N = 360), we manipulated the driver (you vs. stranger) of a hypothetical accident scenario and the situational circumstances surrounding the accident (favorable vs. unfavorable). Supporting the FAE, individuals' situational blame attributions only varied as a function of situational circumstances when they themselves were hypothetically driving. However, neither the driver nor the situation significantly predicted dispositional blame attributions. Yet, Study 1 provided initial support for the importance of an individual's trait tendency to neglect situational constraints when making dispositional blame attributions. In Study 2 (N = 212), we again manipulated situational circumstances surrounding the hypothetical accident, but within the context of a mock civil trial. Results provided additional support for the importance of this trait tendency and expanded our findings of dispositional blame attributions to perceptions of negligence. Implications include the importance of considering trait individual differences in the likelihood to ignore situational demands when individuals are making legally relevant judgments about automobile accidents.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Experimental psychology
Experimental psychology PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
7.70%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: As its name implies, Experimental Psychology (ISSN 1618-3169) publishes innovative, original, high-quality experimental research in psychology — quickly! It aims to provide a particularly fast outlet for such research, relying heavily on electronic exchange of information which begins with the electronic submission of manuscripts, and continues throughout the entire review and production process. The scope of the journal is defined by the experimental method, and so papers based on experiments from all areas of psychology are published. In addition to research articles, Experimental Psychology includes occasional theoretical and review articles.
期刊最新文献
Production and Preschoolers: Is There a Benefit and Do They Know? The Interaction Between the Production Effect and Serial Position in Recognition and Recall. The Role of Stimulus Uncertainty and Curiosity in Attention Control. Correction to Bozkurt et al., 2023. Justifying Responses Affects the Relationship Between Confidence and Accuracy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1