A World of Blame to Go Around: Cross-Cultural Determinants of Responsibility and Punishment Judgments

Abstract

Research finds collectivists make external attributions for others' behavior, whereas individualists make internal attributions. By focusing on external causes, collectivists should be less punitive toward those who harm others. Yet, many collectivistic cultures are known for strict retributive justice systems. How can collectivists simultaneously make external attributions and punish so harshly? We hypothesized that unlike individualists whose analytic tendencies engender a focus on mental states where judgments of accountability stem from perceptions of a harm-doer's agency, collectivists' holistic cognitive tendencies engender a focus on social harmony where judgments of accountability stem from perceived social consequences of the harmful act. Thus, what leads collectivists to make external attributions for behavior also leads to harsh punishment of those harming the collective welfare. Four cross-cultural studies found evidence that perceptions of a target's agency more strongly predicted responsibility and punishment judgments for individualists, whereas perceived severity of the harm was stronger for collectivists.

For Whom Does Determinism Undermine Moral Responsibility? Surveying the Conditions for Free Will Across Cultures

“…mediated = −0.11, 95% CI [−5.57, 5.06], p = 0.86). 4 This result dovetails with abundant evidence that Asian cultures differ in their explanatory style (Miller, 1984; Morris and Peng, 1994; Choi et al, 1999; Chiu et al, 2000; Feinberg et al, 2019). A wide literature reveals that Asian individuals gravitate toward situational (and not dispositional) attributions – which could explain why they evaluate these two crimes in a very similar way – i.e., by viewing both perpetrators as subject to extrinsic pressures that drove them to act.…”

“…Third, because our study did not specifically measure dispositional and situational explanatory styles, we submit that the observed difference between Asia and other world regions could instead be driven by other dimensions of cultural psychology, such as individualism versus collectivism (Triandis, 1995), the prevailing self-concept (Markus and Kitayama, 1991; Heine and Hamamura, 2007), or analytic versus holistic thinking (Nisbett et al, 2001; Feinberg et al, 2019).…”

Self-Interest Bias in the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-Cultural Comparison between the United States and China

“…The latter pattern of findings (e.g., in judging test kits exploitation in Study 1 and sneeze without covering the mouth in Study 2) may have implied other alternative cultural mechanisms. These results that contradicted selfinterest bias among Chinese participants could have been induced by their stronger cultural norms of modesty (Cai et al, 2011) and external sanctions (Feinberg et al, 2018), or related vigilance in explicit expressions of self-serving attitudes (Kim et al, 2010).…”

Self-Interest Bias in the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-Cultural Comparison between the United States and China

“…For example, we measured people's judgments rather than behaviors, which can be inflated by self-presentational concerns. Given concerns about modest cultural norms (Cai et al, 2010) or strict external sanctions (Feinberg et al, 2018), Chinese (vs. US) people can be more vigilant in explicit evaluations of their own (vs. others') self-serving acts, which may also explain why Chinese judged own norm violations more harshly than others' in Study 2.…”