To examine the influence of the thematic structure of descriptions of interaction on observers' perceptions of responsibility, subjects read a story about a victim-assailant interaction and then wrote out their reactions. Either victim or assailant was thematic and scenario content was held constant. A thematic structure effect was predicted: Subjects would write first about, write more about, and express more extreme judgments of responsibility about the thematic target. Reactions to an incident of wife abuse were generally consistent with predictions. Contrary to predictions, 18% of the subjects wrote as much about the nonthematic as about the thematic target. The manipulation of theme did not significantly affect the proportion of statements about victim-negative or assailantmitigated responsibility Several explanations advanced to account for the deviant findings were tested in a second study. The results were as predicted. Implications for victim blaming and the importance of language in social life are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anderson, R. C., & Pichert, J. (1978). Recall of previously unrecallable information following a shift in perspective. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17, 1-12.
2.
Black, J. B., Turner, E., & Bower, G. J. (1979). Point of view in narrative comprehension, memory, and production. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 187-198.
3.
Bower, G. J. (1978). Experiments on story comprehension and recall. Discourse Processes, 1, 211-231.
4.
Brown, P, & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5.
Coates, D., Wortman, C., &Abbey, A. (1979). Reactions to victims. In I. H. Frieze,D. Bar-Tal, & J. S. Carroll (Eds.), New approaches to social problems (pp. 21-52). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
6.
Cupach, W. R., Metts, S., & Hazelton, V., Jr. (1986). Coping with embarrassing predicaments: Remedial strategies and their perceived utility. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 5, 181-200.
7.
Dijk, T. A. van (1979). Relevance assignment in discourse comprehension. Discourse Processes, 2, 113-126.
8.
Dijk, T. A. van, & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
9.
Engelkamp, J., & Zimmer, H. D. (1983). Dynamic aspects of language processing: Focus and presupposition. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
10.
Fincham, F. D., & Jaspars, J. M. (1980). Attribution of responsibility: From man the scientist to man as lawyer. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 13, pp. 81-138). New York: Academic Press.
11.
Fiske, S. T. (1980). Attention and weight in person perception: The impact of negative and extreme behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 889-906.
12.
Fiske, S. T., Taylor, S. E., Etcoff, N. L., & Laufer, J. K (1979). Imaging, empathy, and causal attribution. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 15, 356-377.
13.
Gonzales, M. H., Pederson, J. H., Manning, D. J., & Wetter, D. W (1990). Pardon my gaffe: Effects of sex, status, and consequence severity on accounts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 610-621.
14.
Greenspan, S. L., & Segal, E. M. (1984). Reference and comprehension: Atopic-comment analysis of sentence-picture verification. Cognitive Psychology, 16, 556-606.
15.
Grice, H. P (1975). Logic and conversation. In P Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Vol. 3. Speech acts (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.
16.
Halliday, M.A.K (1970). Language structure and language function. In J. Lyons (Ed.), New horizons in linguistics (pp. 140-165). Harmondsworth: Penguin.
17.
Hart, H.L.A., & Honore, A. M. (1959). Causation in the law. London: Oxford University Press.
18.
Hastie, R., & Park, B. (1986). The relationship between memory and judgment depends on whether the judgment task is memory-based or on-line. Psychological Review, 93, 258-268.
19.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.
20.
Henley, N. M., Miller, M., & Beazley, J. A. (1993, April). Use ofpassive voice in reports of violence against women. Paper presented at the meeting of the Western Psychological Association, Phoenix, AZ.
21.
Hewitt, J. P, & Stokes, R. (1975). Disclaimers. American Sociological Review, 40, 1-11.
22.
Hilton, D. J. (1990). Conversational processes and causal explanation. Psychological Bulletin, 107,65-81.
23.
Johnson-Laird, P N. (1983). Mental models. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
24.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1982). The simulation heuristic. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 201-208). New York: Cambridge University Press.
25.
Lerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. New York: Plenum.
26.
Lingle, J. H., Geva, H., Ostrom, T. M., Leippe, M. R., & Baumgardner, M. H. (1979). Thematic effects of person judgments on impression organization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 674-687.
27.
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics (Vol. 2). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28.
McArthur, L. Z. (1981). What grabs you? The role of attention in impression formation and causal attribution. In E. T. Higgins, C. P. Herman, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Social cognition: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 1, pp. 201-246). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
29.
McArthur, L. Z., & Post, D. L. (1977). Figural emphasis and person perception. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 13, 520-535.
30.
McLaughlin, M. L., Cody, M. J., & O'Hair, H. D. (1983). The management of failure events: Some contextual determinants of accounting behavior. Human Communication Research, 9, 208-224.
31.
Miller, D. T., & Turnbull, W. (1990). The counterfactual fallacy: Confusing what might have been with what ought to have been. Social Justice Research, 4, 1-19.
32.
Morrow, D. G. (1985). Prominent characters and events organize narrative understanding. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 304-319.
33.
Morrow, D. G., Greenspan, S. L., & Bower, G. H. (1987). Accessibility and situation models in narrative comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 165-187.
34.
Ohbuchi, K, Kameda, M., & Agarie, N. (1989). Apology as aggression control: Its role in mediating appraisal of and response to harm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 219-227.
35.
Penelope, J. (1990). Speaking freely. New York: Pergamon.
36.
Resnick, L. B., Levine, J. M., & Teasley, S. D. (1991). Perspectives on socially shared cognition. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
37.
Ryan, W. (1971). Blaming the victim. New York: Pantheon.
38.
Sanford, A. J., & Garrod, S. C. (1981). Understanding written language. Chichester: Wiley.
39.
Schonbach, P (1980). A category system for account phases. European Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 195-200.
40.
Scott, M. B., & Lyman, S. M. (1968). Accounts. American Sociological Review, 33, 46-62.
41.
Semin, G. R., & Manstead, A.S.R. (1983). The accountability of conduct: A social psychological analysis. London: Academic Press.
42.
Shaver, K G. (1985). The attribution of blame: Causality, responsibility, and blameworthiness. New York: Springer-Verlag.
43.
Shaver, K. G., & Drown, D. (1986). On causality, responsibility, and blameworthiness: A theoretical note. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 697-702.
44.
Slugoski, B. R., & Thrnbull, W. (1988). Cruel to be kind and kind to be cruel: Sarcasm, banter and social relations. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 7, 101-121.
45.
Snyder, C. R., & Higgins, R. L. (1988). Excuses: Their effective role in the negotiation of reality. Psychological Bulletin, 104, 23-35.
46.
Taylor, S. E., & Fiske, S. T. (1978). Salience, attention, and attribution: Ibp of the head phenomena. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 11, pp. 249-288). New York: Academic Press.
47.
Tedeschi, J., & Reiss, M. (1981). Verbal strategies in impression management. In C. Antaki (Ed.), The psychology of ordinary explanations of social behavior (pp. 231-309). New York: Academic Press.
48.
Tesser, A. (1978). Self-generated attitude change. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 11, pp. 289-338). New York: Academic Press.
49.
Tesser, A., & Conlee, M. C. (1975). Some effects of time and thought on attitude polarization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 262-270.
50.
Tesser, A., & Cowan, C. L. (1977). Some attitudinal and cognitive consequences of thought. Journal of Research in Personality, 11, 216-226.
51.
Tesser, A., & Leone, C. (1977). Cognitive schemas and thought as determinants of attitude change. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 340-356.
52.
Thorndike, E. L. (1920). A constant error in psychological ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 4, 25-29.
53.
Turnbull, W. (1981). Naive conceptions of free will and the deterministic paradox. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 13, 1-13.
54.
Turnbull, W (1986). Everyday explanation: The pragmatics of puzzle resolution. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 16, 141-160.
55.
Turnbull, W (1992). Aconversation approach to explanation, with emphasis on politeness and accounting. In M. L. McLaughlin,M. J. Cody, & S. J. Read (Eds.), Explaining one's self to others: Reason-giving in a social context (pp. 105-130). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
56.
Turnbull, W, & Slugoski, B. R. (1988). Conversational and linguistic processes in causal attribution. In D. Hilton (Ed.), Contemporary science and natural explanation: Commonsense conceptions of causality (pp. 66-93). New York: New York University Press.
57.
Weiner, B., Folkes, V. S., Amirkhan, J., & Verette, J. A. (1987). An attributional analysis of excuse-giving: Studies of a naive theory of emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 316-324.
58.
Wyer, R. S., Srull, T. K., Gordon, S. E., & Hartwick, J. (1982). Effects of processing objectives on the recall of prose material. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 674-688.
