Responsibility

The Many Faces of a Social Phenomenon

Ann Elisabeth Auhagen, Hans-Werner Bierhoff

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2002
• Topic: Social Sciences
• eBook ISBN:
  9781134564446
• Subtopic: Sociology
• Index: Social Sciences

First Published in 2004. The importance of responsibility in the third millennium is increasing. The rise of new technologies and related environmental hazards, the problem of the neglect of poor and old people, and the increase in violence and aggression in general indicate that respon­sibility is the characteristic which is of critical importance for the survival of modern democratic structures. This volume integrates the many facets of responsibility and reviews the research on a scientific basis. Responsibility is examined from different as well as interdisciplinary perspectives together with the applied aspects of responsibility (solidarity, volunteerism, moral development). Responsibility is made up of four parts: introduction; basic issues and domains of responsibility; applications of responsibility; and perspectives. Responsibility brings together international researchers who emphasise empirical analysis but also examine the theoretical aspects of the topic.

1 Responsibility as a fundamental human phenomenon

Hans-Werner Bierhoff and
Ann Elisabeth Auhagen

Abstract: Responsible action may occur in small social units like the family and in society at large as in the case of protection of the environment. Responsibility constructs a relationship between the individual and social units.We discuss problems which refer to the meaning of responsibility and outline conceptual similarities to related psychological phenomena. In addition, the objective of the book is described and the inter-disciplinary perspective is emphasised. In this context, a short introduction to the chapters of the book is given.

Key words: accountability; attribution; delay of gratification; free will; locus of control; moral development; responsibility; self-control

In the societies of the western world the subject of responsibility is increasing in importance. Issues of responsibility arise in small social units as well as in global societal structures. Responsibility establishes a connection between person and society.

Mothers and fathers who care for their children or a person who warns his colleague about taking up business with a questionable partner are examples of responsibility within small social units. The rise of new technologies and connected environmental hazards, the neglect of the poor and elderly, and the increase in violence and aggression among young people call attention to the fact that responsibility is a characteristic which is critical for the survival of modern democratic structures.

Therefore, it is not very surprising that currently much research in psychology, sociology and philosophy is devoted to the topic of responsibility. Our aim is to bring together these different perspectives in a single publication in order to facilitate the exchange of information concerning responsibility, deepen the understanding of it, and broaden its discussion among experts and students.

Some central questions concerning responsibility

What exactly is the phenomenon of responsibility? This question cannot yet be answered comprehensively. (In a sense this volume as a whole may be understood as an attempt to clarify this topic.) Our objective here is to offer a basis for this difficult undertaking by explaining various aspects which will allow a more precise definition of this complex construct. Because of the fact that we are psychologists, it is only natural that we start with a psychological perspective. However, a psychological perspective to this topic should only be seen as a first step in trying to understand the concept of responsibility. What are some of the basic characteristics of responsibility? In attempting to answer this question it is helpful to note that responsible behaviour has much in common with delay of reward. Delay of gratification means that people choose self-imposed delay of reward over immediate pleasure (Mischel, 1974; Mischel, Shoda and Peake, 1988). In the same vein, responsible behaviour involves self-imposed constraints of action, which include fairness expectancies and social rules. Delay of gratification and responsibility have in common the fact that they imply self-imposed control. In addition, delay of gratification and responsibility, respectively, only make sense if different alternatives are available. Therefore, the temptation to select the easy alternative vies with the obligation to choose the more difficult alternative.

Acceptance and denial of responsibility go hand in hand. Sometimes, the person is tempted to deny responsibility in order to reduce the burden of self-control (Birnbacher, this volume). Denial of responsibility is a ubiquitous phenomenon (Montada, this volume). Usually it is accompanied by justifications and excuses. People feel that they should act in a responsible way although they are tempted not to do so. One solution to this problem is to choose the easy alternative and justify this choice with excuses and altered priorities. Another solution is to decide on the alternative which fulfils the standards of responsibility. High self-control leads to the expectation that the person acts in a responsible way. While responsibility is based on self-control at the individual level, it is understood as a mechanism of social control at the societal level (Schlenker et al., 1994).

In his treatment of the concept of responsibility, Montada (1983) started with the assumption that freedom of choice is a central ingredient of responsibility.This assumption is shared by several theorists who write about responsibility (cf. Auhagen and Bierhoff, this volume; Birnbacher, this volume). Freedom of choice may be indirectly inferred from the fact that human actions are not completely predictable. This statement applies to difficult decisions in particular (von Cranach and Ammann, 1999). Since free will is an anthropological assumption which is hard to verify empirically, the question that arises is which dimensions of subjective experience does it represent. One such dimension is internal versus external locus of control as described by Rotter (1966; see Skinner, 1996 for a review).While some people tend to believe that they influence their environment, other people think that powerful others or simply chance determines their fate. While chance and powerful other factors reflect external control, internal control is based on the conviction that the realisation of one’s plans and intentions changes the situation in the desired direction.

Internal locus of control reflects freedom of choice since the individual is able to choose the path of action which is in agreement with his/her preferences. In contrast, external locus of control is an indication of a lack of freedom of choice, since others decide what will happen. In conclusion, there is a close link between freedom of choice and locus of control.Therefore, the belief in internal locus of control may be understood as an indication of the experience of freedom of choice.

Internal/external control may be defined in a broad way encompassing diverse situations or be limited to specific topics, such as issues of health (Kals, this volume), environment (Kaiser et al., this volume), or politics. In the same vein it is possible to refer to freedom of choice (and responsibility) as a broad concept which characterises the general orientation of a person or to understand it in a more limited sense which applies to a specific segment of social life (e.g. health and illness or traffic accidents).

While it is true that some people are more concerned with responsibility than others, the social situation in which people act may exert a strong influence. For example, obedience to authority as studied in the Milgram (1974) paradigm seems to be a pervasive phenomenon which is only minimally influenced by personality differences. People who act in such a situation may assume that they are the pawns in a power game which is played by others. As a consequence, denial of personal responsibility is a frequent answer to the question why people did not resist the influence of authorities who represent evil (cf. Auhagen and Bierhoff, this volume). From this short discussion the conclusion follows that research on responsibility should also deal with the question of how to encourage people to take on responsibility. In addition, research on the subjective way of constructing the situation of obedience to authority is important (cf. Collins and Brief, 1995).

On the meaning of responsibility

Responsibility is a social phenomenon including many faces and many facets—as the title of this volume states.The subsequent chapters represent different aspects and elements of responsibility and responsibility-related concepts. However, is it possible to say something more general about the meaning of the construct of responsibility? An answer to this question is difficult because of problems which are inherent to the issue of responsibility.

The first problem is that responsibility is a concept which is used in everyday life as well as a theoretical construct which has been given much attention by philosophers, theologists, sociologists, psychologists and lawyers. Everyday language uses—besides the word responsibility itself—other words to describe responsibility and responsibility-related concepts, which emphasise different aspects of responsibility (Fincham and Jaspars, 1980; Shaver, 1985):Accountability and liability refer to the aspects of duty and obligation, whereas blame also involves sanctions. The term responsibility itself seems to be the most comprehensive word, which encompasses the above-mentioned aspects as well as the more pleasant, positively connotated parts of the meaning of responsibility; for example, ethical and moral values or caring.

Words in everyday language are often used somewhat inaccurately. Researchers, however, must be precise in their use of vocabulary. But in the case of responsibility no overarching definition of the construct exists. Some researchers in the literature offer definitions, others do not.This also applies to the authors of this volume.While researchers place different emphases on different aspects of responsibility, often according to their particular topics, some elements of the construct of responsibility seem to be widely accepted. These are the relational aspects of responsibility as recently discussed by McNamee and Gergen (1999), the aspects of ethics and morality, and the aspect of accountability.

The second difficulty in the study of responsibility is that responsibility and the attribution of responsibility are not identical, but may be interwoven. On the one hand, an individual can attribute responsibility to other persons; on the other hand, a person can attribute responsibility to her- or himself. Finally, another possibility is that responsibility can be experienced by an individual. Therefore, several combinations of these viewpoints are possible. For example, a person feels responsible, but may not be held responsible. Or responsibility is attributed to a group of persons who do not feel or accept that responsibility. Or responsibility is attributed to a person because of a social role, but others believe that the person does not fulfil these duties correctly.

Third, responsibility has a positive connotation in the sense that being responsible or acting responsibly has a positive value at least in western societies. But to which actual action responsibility is attributed lastly depends on social and individual norms. For example: Is organ-donating responsible, neutral, or irresponsible (Birnbacher, this volume; Lenk and Maring, this volume)?

The fourth difficulty can be seen in the different psychological qualities responsibility can assume. Responsibility can be seen, for example, from the perspective of an individual trait, as an attribute of persons, situations, or actions, as a motive, an attitude of mind or a social value.

Objective of the book

The general objective of this book is to review various facets of the phenomenon of responsibility on a scientific basis which makes it necessary to deal with responsibility from different interdisciplinary perspectives. For example, the philosophical approach may profit from the psychological approach and vice versa. In addition, responsibility is a societal phenomenon which is captured by the perspective of sociobiology, sociology and communications research. The combination of different perspectives allows for the emergence of new insights into the complex determinants of responsible behaviour. In addition, new ideas on pragmatic issues are outlined. Although responsibility may be understood as an abstract orientation, lately much scientific work has been done on the applied aspects of responsibility which include solidarity, volunteerism, protection of the environment and moral development.

Overview of contributions

Dieter Birnbacher offers a conceptual analysis of the construct of responsibility which is differentiated as causal, ex post, and ex ante responsibility. While ex post responsibility refers to an event that has gone wrong, ex ante responsibility is forward-looking and future-orientated. Related terms are duties and obligations. Finally, causal responsibility is discussed with respect to interpersonal events. Birnbacher goes beyond these distinctions by delineating the conditions under which ex post and ex ante responsibility emerge. Finally, he gives special attention to ex ante responsibility in describing priority rules which can help to solve the problem of conflicting duties and achieve a balance between the burdens and benefits of responsibility.

Robert Hinde develops a socio-biological perspective on responsibility by putting it in the context of codes of conduct which are understood from a biological perspective. It is assumed that moral codes rest on pan-cultural psychological characteristics, especially on propensities to behave prosocially to kin and to behave with reciprocity to other group members. It is argued that a code of conduct is necessary to ensure that individuals will continue to behave prosocially to in-group members and to meet their obligations with responsibility.

Kelly Shaver and Deborah Schutte start with the observation that responsibility is a construction of social systems and therefore relative to the expectations which are held within a cultural system. As a consequence they emphasise the role of cultural differences which have been uncovered by cross-cultural research. For example, transgressions are interpreted differently by Americans and Japanese. While Americans concentrate on the transgressor as a person, the Japanese focus on the transgressor’s social roles. These differences are related to the influence of social institutions. For example, in Japanese schools teachers tend to emphasise interdependence and group harmony.While in Japan socialisation is characterised by learning that responsibility extends to the entire group, Americans learn the lesson that they are individually responsible for transgressions and misdeeds. These differences are also visible in the techniques for the management of interpersonal disputes.

Bernhard Weiner deals with the attribution of responsibility. He focuses on the attribution of responsibility for social transgressions as well as on the consequences of attribution. Among the topics examined are political ideology and welfare decisions, retributive versus utilitarian functions of punishment and aggression as it is evidenced in child abuse.

Ann Elisabeth Auhagen follows a descriptive path to social responsibility. She begins with the insight that responsibility is a phenomenon which is widely present in our daily life. She develops the everyday experience approach to responsibility which starts with the assumption that responsibility can be described in situational units and by a set of variables which include, for example, inner motive, self-efficacy and control. Responsibility in everyday life is investigated in a diary and an interview study. The results indicate that responsibility is considered an important part of daily life and that experiencing responsibility is a complex phenomenon which involves many different aspects.

Leo Montada starts with the statement that denial of responsibility is a frequently observable phenomenon. Its function is understood as a protection mechanism against blame and punishment, self-blame, and guilt feelings. Therefore, denial of responsibility is a defence strategy against obligations, duties and liabilities. Strategies of denial of responsibility include excuses and justifications: for example, denial of agency, lack of foreseeability of consequences, lack of intent and assigning coresponsibility to others. Moreover, it is described how defendants justify their offence (e.g. sexual abuse of children). In summary, the picture of responsibility management emerges by which people try to reduce the amount of responsibility for events which have negative consequences. This also includes the technique of diffusion of responsibility among bystanders of emergencies which lessens the likelihood that help will be offered to the victim.

Hans Lenk and Matthias Maring focus on responsible behaviour in a technological world. Problems of the distribution of responsibility, the contrast between collective and individual responsibility, social dilemma and game theory are mentioned. Several problems of responsibility distribution with respect to individuals and o...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Figures
• Tables
• Contributors
• Acknowledgements
• 1. Responsibility As a Fundamental Human Phenomenon
• 2. Philosophical Foundations of Responsibility
• 3. Responsibility: A Biological Perspective
• 4. Towards a Broader Psychological Foundation for Responsibility: Who, What, How
• 5. An Attributional Approach to Perceived Responsibility for Transgressions: Extensions to Child Abuse, Punishment Goals and Political Ideology
• 6. Responsibility In Everyday Life
• 7. Denial of Responsibility
• 8. Responsibility and Technology
• 9. Responsibility and Ecological Behaviour: A Meta-Analysis of the Strength and the Extent of a Causal Link
• 10. Responsibility Appraisals of Health Protection
• 11. Responsibility In Work Organisations
• 12. Responsibility and Altruism: The Role of Volunteerism
• 13. Responsibility and Reactions to the Disadvantaged
• 14. Responsibility At the Beginning of the Third Millennium