The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Outcome Severity and Judgments of “Responsibility”: A Meta‐Analytic Review1
Abstract
Research has provided mixed support for the hypothesis that when an incident results in a more severe outcome, more responsibility will be attributed to a potentially responsible actor. This paper uses the techniques of meta‐analysis to examine this literature. The results support the contention that people attribute greater responsibility for the outcome of a negative incident when that outcome is more severe than when the outcome is minor. The direction of this relationship is consistent across methodologies. However, the strength of the correlation varies depending on which type of judgment participants are asked to make. Because many of these variables are tied to legal concepts, the results are discussed in the context of the expectations of the legal system regarding the impact of outcome severity on each variable.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Meta-Analytic Procedures for Social Research
Rosenthal, R. (1991) · doi:10.4135/9781412984997 · Cited by 4,635
On causality, responsibility, and self-blame: a theoretical note
Shaver, K. G., & Drown, D. (1986) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.4.697 · Cited by 296
Cited by
Malle, B. F., Guglielmo, S., & Monroe, A. E. (2014) · Psychological Inquiry · doi:10.1080/1047840x.2014.877340 · Cited by 632
Leo, X., & Huh, Y. E. (2020) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2020.106520 · Cited by 261
Doris, J. M., & The Moral Psychology Research Group (2010) · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199582143.001.0001 · Cited by 227
Hirschberger, G. (2006) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.91.5.832 · Cited by 118
Metadata
- Authors
- Robbennolt, J. K.
- Venue
- Journal of Applied Social Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2000-12
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 2575-2609
- ISSN
- 0021-9029 (ISSN-L)
- 1559-1816
- OpenAlex
- W1980994439
- Cited by
- 198
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 0.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
