Maintenance versus emergence in social judgment: The case of rape

The principles of action identification theory are used to form a foundation for a dynamic approach to social interaction that may capture both stability and change in social judgments. Attributions of blame in an ambiguous rape case were explored through the presentation of transcribed interviews with either an alleged rapist (Larry) or his alleged victim (Jane), under either an induced high or low level of action identification, followed by one of two courtroom "closing arguments," attributing primary responsibility for the incident to either Larry or Jane. Responsibility judgments and personality trait ratings were obtained from each subject on both Larry and Jane. Action identification questionnaires for the Larry and Jane perspectives were administered to each participant. As predicted, compared to the high level subjects, subjects in the low level identity condition were more malleable in their judgments of either target. Implications and future research directions are discussed.