We live in an increasingly interconnected world where people’s influence spreads through social networks and media with unprecedented speed. Yet, our knowledge about how people attribute blame in causal chains of spreading human actions is limited. We propose that people trace the causal origin in a sequence of interconnected human actions and blame the initiator of the causal chain for the negative consequences at its end. Four experiments (N = 1,777) show that people trace causal origin in action sequences to the second degree of separation and regard this causal inference as the basis of blame attribution. People also take into account the multiplying effect of junctions in action sequences and attribute more blame to initiators of causal chains when the cascading effects lead to more severe consequences. The findings support the social functionalist approach to naïve blame attribution in human causal chains.
AlickeM. D. (2000). Culpable control and the psychology of blame. Psychological Bulletin, 126(4), 556–574.
2.
AlickeM. D.MandelD. R.HiltonD. J.GerstenbergT.LagnadoD. A. (2015). Causal conceptions in social explanation and moral evaluation: A historical tour. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(6), 790–812.
3.
BanduraA. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.
4.
BaronJ.HersheyJ. C. (1988). Outcome bias in decision evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(4), 569–579.
5.
BartlingB.FischbacherU. (2012). Shifting the blame: On delegation and responsibility. Review of Economic Studies, 79(1), 67–87.
6.
BhatiaD.FischbacherU.HausfeldJ.StumpfR. (2024). Blame and praise: Responsibility attribution patterns in decision chains. Experimental Economics, 27, 637–663.
7.
CentolaD. (2020). How behavior spreads: The science of complex contagions. Princeton University Press.
ChocklerH.HalpernJ. Y. (2004). Responsibility and blame: A structural-model approach. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 20, 93–115.
10.
ChristakisN. A.FowlerJ. H. (2009). Connected: The surprising power of our social networks and how they shape our lives. Little, Brown and Company.
11.
CialdiniR. B. (2001). The science of persuasion. Scientific American, 284(2), 76–81.
12.
CrockettM. J. (2013). Models of morality. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(8), 363–366.
13.
CushmanF. (2008). Crime and punishment: Distinguishing the roles of causal and intentional analyses in moral judgment. Cognition, 108(2), 353–380.
14.
EngelmannN.KirfelL. (2025). Who caused it? Different effects of statistical and prescriptive abnormality on causal selection in chains. In: K. Tobia (Ed.) The Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Jurisprudence (pp. 481–501). Cambridge University Press.
15.
EngelmannN.WaldmannM. R. (2022). How causal structure, causal strength, and foreseeability affect moral judgments. Cognition, 226, Article 105167.
16.
GerstenbergT.LagnadoD. A. (2010). Spreading the blame: The allocation of responsibility amongst multiple agents. Cognition, 115(1), 166–171.
17.
GreeneJ. (2014). Moral tribes: Emotion, reason, and the gap between us and them. Penguin.
18.
HartH. L. A.HonoréT. (1985). Causation in the law. Oxford University Press.
19.
HartmanR.MossA. J.JaffeS. N.RosenzweigC.LitmanL.RobinsonJ. (2023). Introducing Connect by Cloud Research: Advancing online participant recruitment in the digital age. PsyArXiv. https://psyarxiv.com/ksgyr
20.
HauserD. J.MossA. J.RosenzweigC.JaffeS. N.RobinsonJ.LitmanL. (2023). Evaluating CloudResearch’s Approved Group as a solution for problematic data quality on MTurk. Behavior Research Methods, 55, 3953–3964.
21.
HayesA. F. (2023). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.
22.
HiltonD. J.McClureJ.SuttonR. M. (2010). Selecting explanations from causal chains: Do statistical principles explain preferences for voluntary causes?European Journal of Social Psychology, 40(3), 383–400.
23.
JohnsonJ. T.DrobnyJ. (1985). Proximity biases in the attribution of civil liability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(2), 283.
24.
KardosP.LeidnerB.LickelB. (2024). The responsibility of setting a bad example: Models are blamed for their imitators’ behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 54, 1500–1514.
25.
KnobeJ.ShapiroS. (2021). Proximate cause explained. The University of Chicago Law Review, 88(1), 165–236.
26.
LagnadoD. A.ChannonS. (2008). Judgments of cause and blame: The effects of intentionality and foreseeability. Cognition, 108(3), 754–770.
27.
LagnadoD. A.GerstenbergT. (2017). Causation in legal and moral reasoning. In WaldmannM. R. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of causal reasoning (pp. 565–602). Oxford University Press.
28.
LewisD. (1973). Causation. The Journal of Philosophy, 70(17), 556–567.
29.
LickelB.SchmaderT.HamiltonD. L. (2003). A case of collective responsibility: Who else was to blame for the Columbine High School shootings?Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 194–204.
30.
LivengoodJ.SytsmaJ. (2020). Actual causation and compositionality. Philosophy of Science, 87(1), 43–69.
31.
McClureJ.HiltonD. J.SuttonR. M. (2007). Judgments of voluntary and physical causes in causal chains: Probabilistic and social functionalist criteria for attributions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37(5), 879–901.
32.
MenonT.MorrisM. W.ChiuC. Y.HongY. Y. (1999). Culture and the construal of agency: Attribution to individual versus group dispositions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 701–717.
33.
MillerD. T.GunasegaramS. (1990). Temporal order and the perceived mutability of events: Implications for blame assignment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1111–1118.
N’gbalaA.BranscombeN. R. (1995). Mental simulation and causal attribution: When simulating an event does not affect fault assignment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 139–162.
36.
O’NeillK.HenneP.BelloP.PearsonJ.De BrigardF. (2022). Confidence and gradation in causal judgment. Cognition, 223, Article 105036.
37.
SamlandJ.WaldmannM. R. (2016). How prescriptive norms influence causal inferences. Cognition, 156, 164–176.
38.
ShaverK. G. (1985). The attribution of blame: Causality, responsibility and blameworthiness. Springer-Verlag.
39.
SimonsD. J.ShodaY.LindsayD. S. (2017). Constraints on Generality (COG): A proposed addition to all empirical papers. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(6), 1123–1128.
40.
SlomanS.FernbachP. M.EwingS. (2009). Causal models: The representational infrastructure for moral judgment. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 50, 1–26.
StephanS.TentoriK.PighinS.WaldmannM. R. (2021). Interpolating causal mechanisms: The paradox of knowing more. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 150(8), 1500–1527.
43.
TetlockP. E. (2002). Social functionalist frameworks for judgment and choice: Intuitive politicians, theologians, and prosecutors. Psychological Review, 109(3), 451–471.
44.
VinokurA.AjzenI. (1982). Relative importance of prior and immediate events: A causal primacy effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 820–829.
45.
WaldmannM. R.WiegmannA.NagelJ. (2017). Causal models mediate moral inferences. In Bonnefon,J. F.TremoliereB (Eds.), Moral inferences (pp. 45–63). Psychology Press.
46.
ZembaY.YoungM. J.MorrisM. W. (2006). Blaming leaders for organizational accidents: Proxy logic in collective- versus individual-agency cultures. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 101, 36–51.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
