ABSTRACT
In the current study, the actor-observer effect is tested with both mock parole board members and the public evaluating the responsibility of parole board members for a decision resulting in a parolee reoffending and committing a murder. Participants (two samples with a combined N = 1317) were randomly assigned to act as a mock parole board member and make a decision (which ended in the parolee reoffending) or as a member of the public who read a story about the same parole decision and outcome. Findings suggest that the traditional actor-observer asymmetry emerged across blame and responsibility concepts, emotion and moral judgments. Overall, the public held harsher judgments than the mock parole board members. Implications regarding self-enhancement, methodology and attribution theory are discussed.
ABSTRACT
Despite gains in equality for lesbians, gays, and bisexuals (LGB), these couples still face discrimination in adoption scenarios. Guided by the normative window of prejudice and the justification-suppression model, participants read about a suitable or unsuitable couple applying to adopt a child. Participants indicated whether the couple should be allowed to adopt the child and how committed the couple is to being parents. Heterosexuals were perceived as less committed parents compared to LGB parents; sexual orientation was not related to adoption decisions. There was a significant interaction between sexual orientation and suitability for perceptions of commitment to parenting: in the suitable condition, heterosexuals were perceived as less committed parents compared to gays; in the unsuitable condition, heterosexuals were perceived as less committed parents compared to bisexuals. This interaction was nonsignificant for adoption decisions. Future research should determine if these findings relate to other sexual orientations or gender identities.
