Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 17, Issue 5, pp 644–650 | Cite as

Subtle linguistic cues influence perceived blame and financial liability

Brief Reports

Abstract

When bad things happen, how do we decide who is to blame and how much they should be punished? In the present studies, we examined whether subtly different linguistic descriptions of accidents influence how much people blame and punish those involved. In three studies, participants judged how much people involved in particular accidents should be blamed and how much they should have to pay for the resulting damage. The language used to describe the accidents differed subtly across conditions: Either agentive (transitive) or nonagentive (intransitive) verb forms were used. Agentive descriptions led participants to attribute more blame and request higher financial penalties than did nonagentive descriptions. Further, linguistic framing influenced judgments, even when participants reasoned about a well-known event, such as the “wardrobe malfunction” of Super Bowl 2004. Importantly, this effect of language held, even when people were able to see a video of the event. These results demonstrate that even when people have rich established knowledge and visual information about events, linguistic framing can shape event construal, with important real-world consequences. Subtle differences in linguistic descriptions can change how people construe what happened, attribute blame, and dole out punishment. Supplemental results and analyses may be downloaded from http://pbr.psychonomic-journals .org/content/supplemental.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Supplementary material

13423_2010_170500644_MOESM1_ESM.zip (137 kb)
Supplementary material, approximately 340 KB.

References

  1. Brown, R., & Fish, D. (1983). The psychological causality implicit in language. Cognition, 14, 237–273.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Fausey, C. M., & Boroditsky, L. (in press). Whodunnit? Cross-linguistic differences in eyewitness memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.Google Scholar
  3. Fausey, C. M., Long, B. L., Inamori, A., & Boroditsky, L. (in press). Constructing agency: The role of language. Frontiers in Cultural Psychology.Google Scholar
  4. Filipović, L. (2007). Language as a witness: Insights from cognitive linguistics. International Journal of Speech, Language & the Law, 14, 245–267.Google Scholar
  5. Garvey, C., Caramazza, A., & Yates, J. (1975). Factors influencing assignments of pronoun antecedents. Cognition, 3, 227–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Jansson v. Bowen, No. 34-2008-00017351 (Sacramento Super. Ct. Aug. 7, 2008).Google Scholar
  7. Kasof, L., & Lee, J. Y. (1993). Implicit causality as implicit salience.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 65, 877–891. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.65.5.877CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kassin, S. M., & Lowe, C. A. (1979). On the use of single sentence descriptions of behavior in attribution research. Social Behavior & Personality, 7, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lee, L., Frederick, S., & Ariely, D. (2006). Try it, you’ll like it: The influence of expectation, consumption, and revelation on preferences for beer. Psychological Science, 17, 1054–1058. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01829.xCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Levin, I. P. (1987). Associative effects of information framing. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 25, 85–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Levin, I. P., & Gaeth, G. J. (1988). How consumers are affected by the framing of attribute information before and after consuming the product. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 374–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Loftus, E. F., Miller, D. G., & Burns, H. J. (1978). Semantic integration of verbal information into a visual memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory, 4, 19–31.Google Scholar
  13. Loftus, E. F., & Palmer, J. C. (1974). Reconstruction of automobile destruction: An example of the interaction between language and memory. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 13, 585–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Maass, A., Karasawa, M., Politi, F., & Suga, S. (2006). Do verbs and adjectives play different roles in different cultures? A cross-linguistic analysis of person representation. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 90, 734–750. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Old Bailey Proceedings Online (2009). Retrieved November 3, 2009, from www.oldbaileyonline.org.Google Scholar
  16. Pickering, M. J., & Majid, A. (2007). What are implicit causality and consequentiality? Language & Cognitive Processes, 22, 780–788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pryor, J. B., & Kriss, M. (1977). The cognitive dynamics of salience in the attribution process. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 35, 49–55. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.35.1.49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Schmid, J., & Fiedler, K. (1998). The backbone of closing speeches: The impact of prosecution versus defense language on judicial attributions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 1140–1172. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1998.tb01672.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Semin, G. R., Rubini, M., & Fiedler, K. (1995). The answer is in the question: The effect of verb causality upon locus of explanation. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 834–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sher, S., & McKenzie, C. R. M. (2006). Information leakage from logically equivalent frames. Cognition, 101, 467–494. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2005.11.001CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Shiv, B., Carmon, Z., & Ariely, D. (2005). Placebo effects of marketing actions: Consumers may get what they pay for. Journal of Marketing Research, 42, 383–393. doi:10.1509/jmkr.2005.42.4.383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Timberlake, J. (February 1, 2004). “Statement From Justin Timberlake,” PR Newswire.Google Scholar
  23. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 207–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453–458.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. White, P. A. (2003). Effects of wording and stimulus format on the use of contingency information in causal judgment. Memory & Cognition, 31, 231–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Psychological and Brain SciencesIndiana UniversityBloomington

Personalised recommendations