The organizing function of interaction roles in person perception.

Reactions to unfavorable personal evaluations as a function of the evaluator's perceived adjustment.

“…By comparison, the bystander is expected to follow the tendency observed in other experiments (e.g., Jones & deCharms, 1958) to like the well-adjusted and dislike the maladjusted SP regardless of his derogatory behavior. It is assumed that the combined information, maladjustment and derogation, summate for the bystander to produce a very negative impression, whereas the perception of maladjustment by the involved .S carries positive overtones because of its functional significance and tends to cancel out the hostility that would otherwise be aroused by the derogation.…”

Effects of decision alternatives on the verdicts and social perceptions of simulated jurors.

“…In an experiment designed to test the impact of various inferential sets on person perception,Jones and deCharms (1958) hypothesized that instead of the norms that had been experimentally specified in the situation-matching set, the subjects may have had their own ideas about appropriate norms. Those authors, then, were also aware of the possibility of more than one set of norms and the consequent difficulty in experimentally manipulating a. specific set of norms.…”

Attributing responsibility for an accident: A methodological and conceptual critique.

“…Ac-cording to Jones and Thibaut, a jury-decision setting may be the purest example of a situation-matching set. There is some empirical support for the Jones and Thibaut model of inferential sets in Jones and De Charms (1958).…”

“…The defensive attribution hypothesis remains an intriguing possibility and this review has not presented data or alternative hypotheses which prove it wrong. Clearly, important theoretical statements (e.g., Heider, 1958;Jones & Davis, 1965;Kelley, 1971; and some empirical research (e.g., Boutilier Sorrcntino, & Hardy, 1973;Fitch, 1970;Lerner & Simmons, 1966;Lemer & Matthews, 1967;Streufert & Streufert, 1969) indicate that ego-protective needs may affect responsibility judgments. Nevertheless, the present critique makes it clear that at the very minimum the defensive attribution hypothesis needs refinement, that empirical support for it is meagre, and that research in this area has used inappropriate experimental settings and inadequate dependent measures.…”