Asymmetric Attributions for Compliance: Reward vs Punishment

It was proposed that people attribute an individual’s behavior more to internal factors when that individual’s actions are influenced by reward than when those actions are influenced by punishment. Previous research has failed to control for the power of reward versus punishment which, in effect, creates a confounding of behavioral base rates (consensus) with the reward-punishment manipulation. The current research created reward and punishment contingencies that were equal in their base rates for producing a compliant response. In Experiment 1, subjects (n = 63) who produced the base-rate data also made attributions regarding a compliant target person. The results supported the reward-punishment attributional asymmetry hypothesis in that the target person was held more responsible for his actions in the reward than in the punishment conditions. A second experiment (n = 72) provided some attributors with information regarding base rates for compliance and measured perceived base rates for compliance. Knowledge of the base rates for compliance eliminated the reward-punishment attributional asymmetry phenomenon. Subjects not provided with such knowledge erroneously assumed different base rates for reward and punishment and maintained the perception of reward-punishment attributional asymmetry. Using subjects’ estimates of base rate for compliance as a covariate eliminated the attributional asymmetry effect. It is suggested that erroneous base-rate assumptions mediate the attributional asymmetry phenomenon.