When company decisions harm or help the environment: the influence of social context and affective state on moral and causal responsibility attributions

Holding companies accountable for their decisions' environmental side effects becomes increasingly important in the light of current debates on the climate crisis. The present study investigated a young sample's (n = 925) causal and moral responsibility attributions to a company's manager and their subordinate employee, who were either young or middle-aged. The agents jointly made a profit-oriented decision which either harmed or helped the environment. Results were analyzed with respect to the valence of the side effect, the agents' social role, the agents' age group, and participants' affective state. We successfully replicated findings from prior studies, showing that more intention and moral responsibility is ascribed to the manager in case of a negative side effect than in case of a positive side effect, and that the manager deserves more blame for negative side effects than the employee, whereas the employee deserves more praise for positive side effects. Additionally, responsibility attributions varied with the agents' age group, participants' positive and negative affective state, and participants' gender. By incorporating these hitherto neglected factors, the study complements existing theories of responsibility attribution and intergroup perception. The findings further highlight the contribution of affective mechanisms as driving factors of responsibility attributions. Combining moral responsibility research, intergroup research, and affective measures promises to foster the understanding of how and to whom people ascribe blame, praise, and causal responsibility for environmental consequences.
Author(s): Kiara Roth [sup.1] [sup.2] , Kai Kaspar [sup.2] Author Affiliations: (1) grid.10253.35, 0000 0004 1936 9756, Philipps-University of Marburg, , Marburg, Germany (2) grid.6190.e, 0000 0000 8580 3777, University [...]