This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Younger, J. C. Articles by Arrowood, A. J. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Younger, J. C. Articles by Arrowood, A. J. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Happy Accidents: Defensive Attribution or Rational Calculus?

Brian M. Earn

A. John Arrowood

University of Toronto

In a recent study by Shaw and Skolnick (1971), subjects rated a target person as less responsible for accidents having a desirable outcome than for those whose outcomes were more unpleasant. They propose that such findings reflect defensive attribution. The present study questions the empirical basis for their argument. Specifically, it is suggested that differences in perceived responsibility may better reflect differences in the subjective probabilities assigned their accident scenarios than differential ego-defensiveness. The results lend strong support to a reinterpretation of Shaw and Skolnick's findings in nonmotivational terms. The relevance of these effects to the defensive attribution hypothesis is discussed.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 4, No. 1, 52-55 (1978)
DOI: 10.1177/014616727800400110


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?