Xiang Yang, Landy Jenna, Cushman Fiery A, Vélez Natalia, Gershman Samuel J
Department of Psychology, Harvard University, United States of America.
College of Human Ecology, Cornell University, United States of America.
Cognition. 2023 Dec;241:105609. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2023.105609. Epub 2023 Sep 12.
How do people judge responsibility in collaborative tasks? Past work has proposed a number of metrics that people may use to attribute blame and credit to others, such as effort, competence, and force. Some theories consider only the actual effort or force (individuals are more responsible if they put forth more effort or force), whereas others consider counterfactuals (individuals are more responsible if some alternative behavior on their or their collaborator's part could have altered the outcome). Across four experiments (N=717), we found that participants' judgments are best described by a model that considers both actual and counterfactual effort. This finding generalized to an independent validation data set (N=99). Our results thus support a dual-factor theory of responsibility attribution in collaborative tasks.
人们如何在合作任务中判断责任？过去的研究提出了一些人们可能用来将责备和功劳归于他人的指标，例如努力程度、能力和影响力。一些理论只考虑实际的努力或影响力（如果个人付出更多努力或具有更大影响力，那么他们应承担更多责任），而另一些理论则考虑反事实情况（如果个人或其合作者的某些替代行为本可以改变结果，那么该个人应承担更多责任）。在四项实验（N = 717）中，我们发现参与者的判断最能由一个同时考虑实际和反事实努力的模型来描述。这一发现推广到了一个独立的验证数据集（N = 99）。因此，我们的结果支持了合作任务中责任归因的双因素理论。
