The success of criminal acts can sometimes depend critically on the oversight or negligence of uninvolved bystanders (e.g., someone leaving a first-floor window open). Four studies examined how the contribution of a negligent bystander affects blame for the perpetrator of a crime. Although participants stated that discounting blame for the perpetrator was normatively inappropriate in this context, they expected that others would make this very “error.” Instead, across all four studies, bystander negligence amplified ascriptions of perpetrator blame. This amplification occurred because the bad action of the bystander provided an implicit standard of comparison for the perpetrator's act, framing it as more blameworthy. A variety of alternative mechanisms— that bystander negligence altered perceived crime avoidability, prompted spontaneous counterfactualizing, or increased victim empathy—were tested and ruled out. Implications for legal contexts are discussed.
Alicke, M.D. (2000). Culpable control and the psychology of blame. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 556-574.
2.
Barnett, M.E., Brodsky, S.L., & Davis, C.M. (2004). When mitigation evidence makes a difference: Effects of psychological mitigating evidence on sentencing decisions in capital trials . Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 22, 751-770.
3.
Brown, D.R. (1953). Stimulus-similarity and the anchoring of subjective scales. American Journal of Psychology, 66, 199-214.
4.
Campbell, D.T., Lewis, N.A., & Hunt, W.A. (1958). Context effects with judgmental language that is absolute, extensive, and extra-experimentally anchored. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55, 220-228.
5.
Diab, L.N. (1963). Factors determining group stereotypes. Journal of Social Psychology, 61, 3-10.
6.
Englich, B., Mussweiler, T., & Strack (2006). Playing dice with criminal sentences: The influence of irrelevant anchors on experts' judicial decision making. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 188-200.
7.
Ford, T.E., & Thompson, E.P. (2000). Preconscious and postconscious processes underlying construct accessibility effects: An extended search model . Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 317-336.
8.
Helson, H. (1964). Adaptation level theory: An experimental and systematic approach to behavior. New York: Harper & Row.
9.
Herr, P.M. (1986). Consequences of priming: Judgment and behavior . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1106-1115.
10.
Herr, P.M., Sherman, S.J., & Fazio, R.H. (1983). On the consequences of priming: Assimilation and contrast effects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 19, 323-340.
11.
Higgins, E.T., & Lurie, L. (1983). Context, categorization, and memory: The "change-of-standard" effect. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 525-547.
12.
Higgins, E.T., & Stangor, C. (1988). A "change-of-standard" perspective on the relations among context, judgment, and memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 181-192.
13.
Hilton, D.J., & Erb, H.-P. (1996). Mental models and causal explanation: Judgments of probable cause and explanatory relevance. Thinking and Reasoning, 2, 273-308.
14.
Kahneman, D., & Miller, D.T. (1986). Norm theory: Comparing reality to its alternatives . Psychological Review, 93, 136-153.
15.
Kelley, H.H. (1972a). Attribution in social interaction. In E. E. Jones, D. E. Kanouse , H. H. Kelley, R. S. Nisbett, S. Valins , & B. Weiner (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior (pp. 1-26). Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
16.
Kelley, H.H. (1972b). Causal schemata and the attribution process. In E. E. Jones, D. E. Kanouse, H. H. Kelley, R. S. Nisbett, S. Valins , & B. Weiner (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior (pp. 151-174). Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
17.
Kelley, H.H. (1973). The processes of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28, 107-128.
18.
Kerr, N.L., Harmon, D.L., & Graves, J.K. (1982). Independence of multiple verdicts by jurors and juries. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 12, 12-29.
19.
Leddo, J., Abelson, R.P., & Gross, P.H. (1984). Conjunctive explanations: When two reasons are better than one. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 47, 933-943.
20.
McClure, J. (1998). Discounting causes of behavior: Are two reasons better than one? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 74, 7-20.
21.
Morris, M.W., & Larrick, R.P. (1995). When one cause casts doubt on another: A normative analysis of discounting in causal attribution. Psychological Review, 102, 331-355.
22.
Mussweiler, T., Rüter, K., & Epstude, K. (2004). The man who wasn't there: Subliminal social standards influence self-evaluation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 486-496.
23.
Pepitone, A., & DiNubile, M. (1976). Contrast effects in judgments of crime severity and the punishment of criminal violators. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 448-459.
24.
Petty, R.E., & Wegener, D.T. (1993). Flexible correction processes in social judgment: Correcting for context-induced contrast. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 137-165.
25.
Perlin, M.L. (1994). The sanist lives of jurors in death penalty cases: The puzzling role of ``mitigating'' mental disability evidence. Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics, and Public Policy, 8, 239-279.
26.
Reeder, G.D., Fletcher, G.J.O., & Furman, K. (1989). The role of observers' expectancies in attitude attribution. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 25, 168-188.
27.
Schwarz, N., & Bless, H. (1992). Scandals and the public's trust in politicians: Assimilation and contrast effects. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 574-579.
28.
Schwarz, N., Munkel, T., & Hippler, H.J. (1990). What determines a "perspective"? Contrast effects as a function of the dimension tapped by preceding question. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 357-361.
29.
Simpson, D.D., & Ostrom, T.M. (1974). Contrast effects in impression formation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 625-629.
30.
Stapel, D.A., & Blanton, H. (2004). From seeing to being: Subliminal social comparisons affect implicit and explicit self-evaluations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 468-481.
31.
Stapel, D.A., Koomen, W., & Zeelenberg, M. (1998). The impact of accuracy motivation on interpretation, comparison, and correction processes: Accuracy × Knowledge Accessibility effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 878-893.
32.
Stapel, D.A., Martin, L.L., & Schwarz, N. (1998). The smell of bias: What instigates correction processes in social judgments? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 797-806.
33.
Tiedens, L.Z., Unzueta, M.M., & Young, M.J. (2007). An unconscious desire for hierarchy? The motivated perception of dominance complementarity in task partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 402-414.
34.
Wegener, D.T., & Petty, R.E. (1997). The flexible correction model: The role of naïve theories of bias in bias correction. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 29, pp. 141-208). Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum.
35.
Werner, C.M., Strube, M.J., Cole, A.M., & Kagehiro, D.K. (1985). The impact of case characteristics and prior jury experience on jury verdicts. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 5, 409-427.
36.
Weiner, B. (1995). Inferences of responsibility and social motivation . In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 27, pp. 1-47). New York: Academic Books.
