How individuals accept or reject blame following a group failure influences how others perceive their warmth, competence, honesty, and willingness to pay for their advice. In this study (N = 184), participants evaluated a target that either claimed, assigned, shared, or remained neutral regarding blame after a hypothetical failure. Results indicate that targets who claim blame in any capacity are judged significantly warmer, their competence is not negatively impacted, and they are seen as more honest than individuals that assign blame. Descriptive results indicate participants were also more willing to pay for advice from these individuals. However, when using a behaviorally incentivized design (N = 62), people paid most for advice from targets that assigned blame. This reveals initial evidence for an important belief-behavior gap. Observers believe they value warmth and integrity, but when personal resources are at stake, they prioritize competence. However, non-significant Anova results were found for the willingness to pay measures, which highlights the need for future research to confirm these trend-level findings. These results can inform an individual's behavior for how to best navigate blame following a joint failure.
Chris Higgins (Fri,) studied this question.