We Are All the Same and (Not) Judged the Same? Examining Attribution Tendencies of Liberals in the Context of Norm Violations by Refugees

Abstract

This study examines how political ideology shapes attribution processes, focusing on how liberals attribute undesirable behaviour by a minority outgroup member they support. It was investigated whether, depending on the actor's group membership, the strength of norm violation affects attribution biases and emotional and punitive reactions. Two experiments (N₁ = 180, N₂ = 276) showed that participants were more likely to attribute a refugee's (vs. a non-refugee majority group member) norm-violating behaviour to external rather than to dispositional factors. Contrary to our hypotheses, the strength of norm violation did not have the expected effect on the difference in dispositional attribution between groups. Regarding emotional reactions, liberals exhibited more sympathy and less anger and desire for punishment towards a refugee compared to a majority group member. Furthermore, the findings suggest that the strength of the norm violation may influence anger and desire for punishment. When the norm violation was severe, participants expressed similar levels of anger and desire for punishment towards both actors, whereas there was a significant difference between group memberships when the norm violation was weaker. These findings provide a foundation for future research on how values and beliefs shape interpretations of others' actions, enhancing our understanding of intergroup attributions and the cognitive underpinnings of social judgements and biases.