An experiment was conducted to investigate the influence of both informational and motivational factors on observers' attributions. Observers evaluated the behavior of a "student therapist" who attempted to follow a prescribed procedure for reducing minor phobia in a presumed client. Observers were informed of the Probable Outcome of the therapy (positive or negative), and later learned of the Actual Outcome (successful or unsuccessful). Personal Involvement in evaluating the actor's performance was induced in half the observers by informing them they would take the actor's role themselves; the remaining half were told the study would conclude with their judgments. Consistent with previous theorizing and research about information processing, subjects attributed greater causality to the therapist's delivery when the actual outcome differed from the expected outcome than when there was agreement between the two. Subjects also attributed greater causality to the actor for a successful than for an unsuccessful outcome. Personal involvement led observers to attribute less causality to the actor than subjects who expected only to observe; an unexpected interaction of Personal Involvement and Probable Outcome also emerged. However, the strongest motivationally based prediction, an interaction of Personal Involvement and Actual Outcome, was not confirmed.

Four-man groups participated in a model-building task. They were instructed to discuss and then perform the task as a group. Half the groups were given explicit procedural instructions (High Structure), and the other half were not (Low Structure). Of the four males in each group, one had scored High, one Low, and two Medium on the Machiavellianism Scale. Medium Machs were rated as leaders significantly more than High or Low Machs, especially in the Low Structure condition. Low Structure increased emergent leadership across Machiavellianism level, while High Structure increased group members' satisfaction.

Seventy-two male subjects judged a defendant on trial for armed robbery, after reading trial transcripts and other background information. The 2 × 2 factorial design varied the defendant's socioeconomic status (SES) and simulated juror's decision making condition (either group discussion or independent decision-making). Higher SES (middle class) defendants were seen as less blameworthy than low SES defendants, though not less guilty. Defendants were judged less guilty when simulated jurors had engaged in group discussion than when they had not. Subjects' potential similarity to the defendant, and their attitudes toward capital punishment, were also found related to these “legal” and “moral” decisions.

The effects of severity of an accident, perceived freedom of the perpetrator, and empathic value of the victim were examined in a 2 × 2 × 2 factorial design. 192 subjects read detailed accident scenarios and then made judgments as to the responsibility of each of a number of plausibly responsible agents. In line with the hypotheses, subjects attributed more responsibility to the perpetrator under high severity than low severity conditions, and more responsibility under high than low perceived freedom. The hypothesis that more responsibility would be attributed to the perpetrator when the victim was human than when the victim was a dog was not supported. Additionally, there was no clear evidence for victim derogation. The implications of these findings for defensive attribution and just world hypotheses as well as for methodological issues are discussed.

An experiment was conducted to test the hypothesis that actors' causal attributions for success and failure would be affected by the degree of perceived choice they had in taking an action. Actors either were assigned, or selected one of four therapeutic outlines which were expected to have either a positive or a negative effect, and which actually had either a positive or negative outcome on a purportedly phobic person. For negative outcomes, it was predicted that perceived choice would induce a sense of personal responsibility when a positive outcome was expected, and lead actors to attribute more responsibility to themselves as a result. Results supported this prediction. For positive outcomes, however, actors attributed responsibility to themselves regardless of expectancy or choice. Actors were also found to attribute generally more responsibility to themselves for positive than negative outcomes. Results were discussed in terms of self-esteem motivation and the information available to the actor.

Eighty-four simulated jurors judged a defendant on trial for armed robbery after reading trial transcripts and other background information in a 2 × 2 factorial design which varied the defendant's race and socioeconomic status (S.E.S). Higher S.E.S. (middle class) defendants were judged less guilty and assigned fewer years in prison than low S.E.S. defendants regardless of race. A race × S.E.S. interaction on attributed blameworthiness of the defendant, which was inversely related to the jurors' judgements of the defendant's similarity to them, was also found. Theoretical and methodological implications of these findings for jury simulation studies are discussed.

Journal of PersonalityVolume 42, Issue 1 p. 62-77 Effect of expected and observed outcome of an action on the differential causal attributions of actor and observer1 John H. Harvey, John H. Harvey Vanderbilt UniversitySearch for more papers by this authorRobert M. Arkin, Robert M. Arkin University of Southern CaliforniaSearch for more papers by this authorJames M. Gleason, James M. Gleason State University of New York at BuffaloSearch for more papers by this authorShawn Johnston, Shawn Johnston University of California, Los AngelesSearch for more papers by this author John H. Harvey, John H. Harvey Vanderbilt UniversitySearch for more papers by this authorRobert M. Arkin, Robert M. Arkin University of Southern CaliforniaSearch for more papers by this authorJames M. Gleason, James M. Gleason State University of New York at BuffaloSearch for more papers by this authorShawn Johnston, Shawn Johnston University of California, Los AngelesSearch for more papers by this author First published: March 1974 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1974.tb00557.xCitations: 36 1 We wish to thank Ellen Manning for serving as an experimental accomplice in this study, Harold H Kelley for helpful comments during the design phase of the study, Jerry Zadny for assistance with the data analysis, and William P Smith and Lawrence S. Wrightsman for helpful comments on an earlier version of the manuscript. AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume42, Issue1March 1974Pages 62-77 RelatedInformation

Two experiments were conducted to examine the relative contributions of bisection and verticality to the inverted T variant of the horizontal-vertical illusion. The first study which utilized binocular presentation of stimuli supported the hypothesis that the magnitude of the horizontal-vertical illusion could be accounted for by simple additive combination of the magnitude of the vertical and bisection sub-illusions. The second study replicated the findings of the first study using dichoptic presentation (horizontal line to one eye, vertical to the other). The results of both studies taken together indicate that the amount of the horizontal-vertical illusion is due to the separate factors of bisection and verticality and that these processes are central (cortical) rather than peripheral in origin.