AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF CAUSAL ATTRIBUTION, EMPATHY, AND JUDGMENT ON AN ACTOR'S BEHAVIOR IN THE NATURAL SETTING WITH POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE OUTCOME

Abstract

The present study aims to test hypotheses concerning three aspects of the causal attribution process as related to (1) what one attributes the causality of the observed accidents, (2) how much one elnpathizes with the actor, and (3) how one evaluates the actor's behavior, using “naturalistic” settings with positive or negative consequences. A 2×2×3×2 factorial design was used, with (1) the nature of the consequences depicted (positive or negative), (2) severity of the consequences (severe or mild), (3) the actor's personality traits (preferred, neutral, or unattractive), and (4) sex differences as independent variables.
As predicted from the defensive-causal attribution hypothesis, positive accidents tended more to be attributed to external causes whereas negative ones were more likely to be attributed to internal causes. This tendency, however, varied as a function of the actor's personality traits. That is, under the conditions in which negative consequences were obtained, the subjects tended to hold the situation responsible rather than the actor if he was “preferred”, but the opposite held true when the actor was “unattractive”. Under the positive conditions, however, the tendency was more nearly reversed.
In addition, the subjects tended to empathize with and to be favorable toward the actor when the accident brought positive results. On the other hand, the subjects who had negative rather than positive self-regard tended to judge the actor more favorably. Sex differences were generally not significant though suggestive.