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.
