El objetivo de este estudio fue conocer en qué medida la magnitud de responsabilidad social atribuida al actor se ve afectada por el contexto social (tipo de conducta y proximidad actor-observador), los atributos personales (nivel de individualismo-colectivismo, responsabilidad personal) y las características demográficas (sexo, edad, número de amigos íntimos, número de endogruposy religiosidad) del observador. Participaron 249 estudiantes universitarios, un 82% mujeres y con edad promedio de 20 años. Éstos contestaron a la Escala de Individualismo-Colectivismo (Triandis y cols., 1988) y la Escala de Responsabilidad Personal; además, participaron en un experimento en que, a través de historias escritas, fueron manipulados el tipo de conducta (intención vs. omisión vs. negligencia) y la proximidad actor-observador (una persona cercana vs. un desconocido). Tras leerlas, tenían que indicar el grado de responsabilidad social del actor. Los resultados fueron que el contexto social es más determinante que las características personales del observador a la hora de explicar la magnitud de la responsabilidad que éste atribuye al actor; la mayor responsabilidad social es atribuida cuando el actor es alguien cercano al observador.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Al-ZahraniS. S. A.KaplowitzS. A. (1993). Attribution biases in individualis tic and collectivist ic cultures: a comparison of Americans with Saudis. Social Psychology Quarterly, 56, 223–233.
2.
AndrewsB. (1992). Attribution processes in victims of marital violence: who do women blame and why? EnHarveyL. H.OrbuchT. L.WeberA. L. (Eds.), Attributions, accounts, and close relationship.Nueva York: Springer-Verlag.
3.
Dela ColetaJ. A. (1982). Atribuição de causalidade: teoria e pesquisa.Rio de Janeiro: Editora Fundação Getúlio Vargas.
4.
FinchamF. D.BradburyT. N.GrychJ. H. (1990). Conflict in close relationship: the role of intra-personal phenomena. EnGrahamS.FolkesV. S. (Eds.), Attribution theory: applications to achievement, mental health, and interpersonal conflict (pp. 161–184). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
5.
GouveiaV. V.AlvesS. M. (1993). Tipo de comportamento e proximidade ator-observador: suas influências na atribuiçào de responsabili dade social. Psicología: Reflexäo e Crítica, 6, 49–56.
6.
GouveiaV. V. (1998). La naturaleza de los valores descriptores del individualis mo y del colectivismo: una comparación intra e intercultural. Tesis doctoral. Facultad de Psicología, Universidad Complutense de Madrid.
7.
HarveyJ. H.OrbuchT. L.WeberA. L. (1992). Introduction: convergence of the attribution and accounts concepts in the study of close relationship. EnHarveyL. H.OrbuchT. L.WeberA. L. (Eds.), Attributions, accounts, and close relationships.Nueva York: Springer-Verlag.
8.
HofstedeG. (1984). Culture's consequences: international differences in work-related values.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
9.
JasparsJ.HewstoneM.FinchamF. D. (1983). Attribution theory and research: the state of the art. EnJasparsJ.FinchamF. D.HewstoneM. (Eds.), Attribution theory and research: conceptual, developmental and social dimensions (pp. 3–36). Nueva York: Academic Press.
10.
KelleyH. H.MichelaL. H. (1980). Attribution and research. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 457–501.
11.
KigerG.CuzzortR. P.JohnsonC. D. (1985). The attribution of positive and negative qualities to social actions. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 119, 323–333.
12.
LalljeeM.WatsonM.WhiteP. (1983). Some aspects of the explanations of young children. EnJasparsJ.FinchamF. D.HewstoneM. (Eds.), Attribution theory and research: conceptual, developmental and social dimensions (pp. 165–192). Nueva York: Academic Press.
13.
Lloyd-BostockS. (1983). Attributions of cause and responsability as social phenomena. EnJasparsJ.FinchamF. D.HewstoneM. (Eds.), Attribution theory and research: conceptual, developmental and social dimensions (pp. 261–289). Nueva York: Academic Press.
14.
LöchelE. (1983). Sex differences in achievement motivation. EnJasparsJ.FinchamF. D.HewstoneM. (Eds.), Attribution theory and research: conceptual, developmental and social dimensions (pp. 193–220). Nueva York: Academic Press.
15.
MillerJ. G. (1984). Culture and the development of everyday social explanation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 961–978.
16.
MonsonT. C. (1983). Implications of the traits v. situations controversy for differences in the attributions of actors and observers. EnJasparsJ.FinchamF. D.HewstoneM. (Eds.), Attribution theory and research: conceptual, developmental and social dimensions (pp. 293–313). Nueva York: Academic Press.
17.
MoralesJ. F.LópezM.VegaL. (1992). Individualismo, colectivismo e identidad social.Revista de Psicología Social, Monográfico, 49–72.
18.
O'connelA. N.PérezS. (1982). Fear of success and causal attributions of success and failure in high school and college students. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 111, 141–151.
19.
O'neillP.EisnerM. (1981). Responsibility and decision-making: factors that contribute to careful attention in choice task. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 13, 288–296.
20.
PasqualiL.GouveiaV. V. (1990). Escala de Assertividade Rathus—RAS: adaptação brasileira. Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa, 6, 233–249.
21.
SchwartzS. H.HuismansS. (1995). Value priorities and religiosity in four Western religions. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58, 88–107.
22.
SigelmannE.FernandesL. M. (1984). A medida da responsabilidade social. Arquivos Brasileiros de Psicologia, 36, 26–41.
23.
SingelisT. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 622–644.
24.
ShultzT. R.SchleiferM. (1983). Towards a refinement of attribution concepts. EnJasparsJ.FinchamF. D.HewstoneM. (Eds.), Attribution theory and research: conceptual, developmental and social dimensions (pp. 37–62). Nueva York: Academic Press.
25.
ShultzT. R.SchleiferM.AltmanI. (1981). Judgments of causation, responsibility, and punishment in cases of harm-doing. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 13, 238–253.
26.
ShultzT. R.WrightK. (1985). Concepts of negligence and intention in the assignment of moral responsibility. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 17, 97–108.
27.
SmithP. B.DuganS.TrompenaarsF. (1996). National culture and the values of organizational employees: a dimensional analysis across 43 nations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27, 231–264.
28.
TriandisH. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism.Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
29.
TriandisH. C.BontempoR.VillarealM. J.AsaiM.LuccaN. (1988). Individualism and collectivism: cross-cultural perspectives on self-ingroup relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 323–338.
30.
WatermanA. S. (1981). Individualism and interdependence. American Psychologist, 36, 762–773.
