Responsibility attribution and support provision in an intergroup context: An examination in a simulated society game¹

Abstract

Two studies were conducted to examine the relationship between ingroup identification, responsibility attribution, and attitude toward support provision. The data were collected from the participants of a simulated society game named SIMINSOC (Simulated International Society; Hirose, 1997). The global society in the game includes two rich regions and two poor regions, and the poor regions need to obtain support from rich regions for survival. In the two studies, participants were randomly assigned to either rich or poor regions, were engaged in various activities in the game, and answered questions concerning the identification, responsibility attribution, and attitude toward support provision. The results indicated that responsibility attributions were biased to favor the ingroups. Furthermore, poor regions believed that they should be supported more than the rich regions intended to provide support. Structural equation analyses suggested that the intergroup bias in attribution was increased when identification toward the ingroup was strong. The discussion considers the implications of the findings for interactions between groups.

Victim and Observer Asymmetries in Their Reactions to an Apology: How Responsibility Attribution and Emotional Empathy Lead to Forgiveness

“…Given the significance of student club activities for Japanese university students (Arai & Matsui, 2003), participants in our study may have had a strong tendency to identify other characters in the scenario as ingroup members. Based on reports that causal and responsibility attributions are often times biased to favor the ingroup (e.g., Hewston, 1990;Karasawa, 2002), it is possible that the observers who deemed the transgressor as a fellow ingroup member were more likely to make favorable attribution judgments than those in the Risen and Gilovich's study.…”

Implementing Petty Favor in Facilitating Rich-Poor Resource Exchange

“…We also measured group identification(Karasawa, 2002), perceived homophily(Ensari et al, 2012), impressions(Fiske et al, 2002) toward both rich and poor residential partners, subjective social status(Adler et al, 2000), and generalized trust(Yamagishi & Yamagishi, 1994). However, we did not include these variables in the main analysis.Chen & Igarashi LEBS Vol.…”