Happy Accidents: Defensive Attribution or Rational Calculus?

Abstract

In a recent study by Shaw and Skolnick (1971), subjects rated a target person as less responsible for accidents having a desirable outcome than for those whose outcomes were more unpleasant. They propose that such findings reflect defensive attribution. The present study questions the empirical basis for their argument. Specifically, it is suggested that differences in perceived responsibility may better reflect differences in the subjective probabilities assigned their accident scenarios than differential ego-defensiveness. The results lend strong support to a reinterpretation of Shaw and Skolnick's findings in nonmotivational terms. The relevance of these effects to the defensive attribution hypothesis is discussed.