Journal
COGNITION
Volume 241, Issue -, Pages -Publisher
ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2023.105609
Keywords
Responsibility attribution; Moral psychology; Causal reasoning; Social cognition
Categories
Ask authors/readers for more resources
This study found that in collaborative tasks, people's judgments of responsibility consider both actual effort and counterfactual scenarios, supporting a dual-factor theory of responsibility attribution.
How do people judge responsibility in collaborative tasks? Past work has proposed a number of metrics that people may use to attribute blame and credit to others, such as effort, competence, and force. Some theories consider only the actual effort or force (individuals are more responsible if they put forth more effort or force), whereas others consider counterfactuals (individuals are more responsible if some alternative behavior on their or their collaborator's part could have altered the outcome). Across four experiments (N = 717), we found that participants' judgments are best described by a model that considers both actual and counterfactual effort. This finding generalized to an independent validation data set (N = 99). Our results thus support a dual-factor theory of responsibility attribution in collaborative tasks.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available