An empirical test of Heider's levels in attribution of responsibility.

Some cultural differences in sanctioning behavior

“…This consists of short stories designed to represent Heider's (1958) levels and the outcome quality and intensity variables, and is similar to the AR Questionnaire used by Shaw & Sulzer (1964). Each story at a given level includes only the minimum factors necessary to elicit sanctioning behavior by a person functioning at that level of development.…”

“…A notable exception is the work of Sulzer (1964) who demonstrated that attribution of responsibility to another person for an outcome (event, happening) provides the basis for sanctioning that person. He also showed that sanctioning behavior is influenced by at least some of the same variables as attribution of responsibility-namely, association, commiSSion, foreseeability ,intentionality, justification, outcome quality, and outcome intensity (Shaw & Sulzer, 1964).…”

Causal Conceptions in Social Explanation and Moral Evaluation

“…During this period, Heider's conception of responsibility was formalized into inferential stages of association, causality, foreseeability, intentionality, and supererogation (Fincham & Jaspars, 1979; for an earlier test of Heider's model, see Shaw & Sulzer, 1964). Research directed at the primary components of blame (i.e., intent, causation, foresight and foreseeability, mitigating circumstances) generally confirmed rational expectations, including the findings (a) that people are blamed most for intentional harm, followed by unintended but negligent harm, and least by accidental harm (Karlovac & Darley, 1988;Shultz & Wright, 1985;Shultz, Wright, & Schleifer, 1986); (b) that people who cause harm directly are blamed more than those whose influence is more remote ( Johnson & Drobny, 1987); and (c) that people are blamed more for harms they foresaw or should have foreseen than for detrimental outcomes that were unforeseen or unforeseeable (Brewer, 1977;Schlenker, Britt, Pennington, Murphy, & Doherty, 1994).…”

The effects of social context and size of injury on perceptions of a harm-doer and victim

“…For example, several investigations have indicated that the severity of the consequences of some events affects attributions, with the general pattern of results support- 37 ing the conclusion that attribution of responsibility is greater following acts with severe consequences in comparison to acts with mild consequences (e.g., Shaw & Sulzer, 1964). When applied to the perception of aggression, this fmding suggests that an individual who produces severely negative consequences for others may be seen as more aggressIve than the person whose behavior produces only mildly negative consequences.…”