The following essay essentially explores the human process of evaluating a particular scenario in relation to many of the concepts defined in social psychology. by focusing on a prescribed reading and the information it presents, I will develop an understanding of the decision-making process upon being confronted with the variation and nature of details presented within the experiment to the subjects, stating whether various hypothesis for the decision are applicable. It seems that a similar conclusion, that is that just world beliefs do not affect the attribution of blame, is reached by Brems and Wagner (1994). Whereas McKnight and Sutton (1994) would suggest that the belief does have such an effect, a standpoint I do not envisage as completely correct.

The article in question, "Blame of Victim and Perpetrator in Rape Versus Theft" (Brems & Wagner, 1994) in my belief describes in essence the fundamental attribution error. Attribution theory states that we will often find/create causal factors behind a persons behaviour with respect to either a dispositional or situational explanation. The process by which we assign situational or dispositional factors to another persons behavior in our attempt to understand or assimilate it in to our schemata for a person can have negative consequences. In this instance however, it is important to understand why one person may assign a situational factor to a crime (such as rape) or illness (such as AIDS), or a dispositional one. By identifying the underlying concepts that lead to such an affect we will reach greater understanding of exactly how what the majority is saying may affect the individual and their decision.

Our attitude toward a particular situation, attitude being the very belief that affects our response to the person, event or object in question, is the result of the schemeta we have formed concerning the people involved. Our conclusions of the very character of the people involved is affected by our attribution of either situational or dispositional factors, which in turn then affects our attitude toward them.

Going even deeper, we introduce another theory which suggests that the reasoning behind an individuals decision is what is known as the Just World Hypothesis (MacKnight & Sutton, 1994). This theory essentially suggests that our decisions result from the belief that people get what they deserve. This is easily perceived in the working environment, in which the worker believes that the harder they toil, the better the rewards they will receive in the form of money or status amongst fellow workers. The belief that would have a great affect on our attitude in a particular situations and under certain circumstances. Applied to the principle reading I find that this approach, although adequately exploring the attribution of blame towards the victim in that they must not have worked at defending themselves from the potentiality, it lacks adequate application to the rape crime. The victim did not work towards the rape! Perhaps, however, if we were to apply the concept a little more 'harshly' we could intepret the rape scenario in which the woman is described as wearing provocative clothing as working towards a particular eventuality. And yet this drives towards a level of gender bias. We are making a decision based upon stereotypical views and our expectations of the female's (and the males, as it seems he is almost expected, and therefore justified, to make a particular response) behaviour (gender roles). Psychologist Sandra Bem (1985) states that "Human behaviours and personality attributes should no longer be linked with gender", and yet here that is exactly the attribution we are engaged in. This serves to highlight how the decision-making process is further complicated by our definition of gender. Even when considering the notion, I find it hard to apply just world hypothesis to the rape case scenario and a person's response to it and so would dispense with its application here.

It is important to mention at this point that the statistics demonstrate a marked difference in the attribution of blame considering the type of crime. This is a result of the attribution of a situational effect no doubt, and demonstrates how attitudes can change dependant upon the situation and the circumstances that it presents. Blame is often affected by how much responsibility for the event the perpetrator or victim is perceived as having. Who acted with the intent for the outcome? Who's actions were performed in order to reach the final outcome? Questions such as these are not always easy to answer but are demonstrative of the differences that exist between responsibility and blame. Both parties can be at some degree of fault, but it is the (malicious) intent of one that leads the other to be classified as the victim. Still further, someone's actions may have contributed to the final outcome unintentionally but is not attributed blame, they are not responsible for the final outcome.

The fundamental attribution error is an evitable consequence of life on this planet. It has been noted that knowledge of it doesn't stop it being perpetrated (Myers, 1995).

Our attitudes, beliefs, attributions and resulting behaviours collide both in the very first few seconds we are introduced to a new face, and in analysing the scenarios presented in Brems and Wagner's (1994) study. The complexity of human decision making lies in an examination of what factors are actually incorporated in the process, and how they link to and effect each other. Primarily concerning the example of our attributions affecting our attitudes to different people, situations and objects. Essentially it all comes down to - as I stated in the beginning - the fundamental attribution error.

References

Bem, S. L. (1985). Androgyny and gender schema theory: A conceptual and empirical integration. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 32, 179-226. (p. 679)
Brems, C. & Wagner, P. (1994). Blame of victim and perpetrator in rape versus theft. Journal of Social Psychology, 134, 363-374.
McKnight, J. & Sutton, J. (1994). Social Psychology. Sydney: Prentice Hall.
Myers, D.G. (1995). Psychology (4th ed.). New York: Worth Publishers. Chapter 18 and pp 681-686.