There were two groups of participants (in total, 219). Group one was managers (including leaders from corporations, government officers and managers from university, n = 127, 75 males, 52 females). Group two was employees and staff from those three fields (n = 92, 34 males, 58 females). Their ages were between 25 and 46 (M = 31.26, SD = 5.23). They all had more than two years’ working experience.

To check the manipulation effects of situations and understand the principles causing the trends of some dependent variables, the mean values and standard deviations are shown in Table 1.

These data indicate that the manipulation effects of the variables were successful, their values were as predicted. The mean values of locus, stability and controllability in situation 1 were 6.388, 4.932, 6.350, respectively, indicating that participants commonly thought that this was an internal-controllable- stable situation; however, in situation 2 their values were 2.319, 2.802, 3.302, respectively, indicating that it tended to be an external-uncontrollable-unstable situation. This was consistent with the intention of our manipulation. T-test showed: t(217) = 22.967, 7.765, 13.748, ps < .001; there was a significant difference between them. These results confirmed that the manipulation effects of situations were consistent with our prediction.

Correspondingly with the manipulation, the other dependent variables changed as well, such as to the variables of anger, sympathy, expectation, responsibility, and help giving. Their t values respectively were ts(217) = 18.730, -29.058, 9.277, 22.515, -17.687, ps < .001. All of the variables in the two situations were significantly different respectively. Situation 1 elicited high anger - low sympathy - high expectation - high responsibility - low help; conversely, situation 2 elicited low anger - high sympathy - low expectation - low responsibility - high help. These changes were consistent with our manipulation and prediction as a whole, and fitted Weiner’s (2000) theoretical hypothesis as well.

Testing by participants’ gender and identity (employee and manager) showed that there were neither main effects nor interacted effects; that is to say, participants’ understanding of every situation was identical, whether by gender or by identity.

To find the relationships among these variables, we carried out correlation analysis, and combined the data for situation 1 and 2. All of the variables had significant correlation (ps < .01) with the others. And since the two situations elicited very different attribution and subsequent reactions, most of the correlation efficiencies (from 0.3145 to 0.8398) were very high. From these tendencies of change, we could see that the relationships among these variables were consistent with our basic hypothesis.

To test and uncover the quantitative relationships among these variables, structural equation analysis was used to conform the related theoretical model. Here, according to attributional theory and the related achievements, we set up the theoretical model first, then tested the model by Peter Bentler’s structural equation statistical program (EQS6.0).

The standard parameters were as seen in Figure 2, and the fitness indexes showed a very good level of fit of the model to the data: fitness index χ2(10) =15.60, p = .11 > .05. This showed that the theoretical hypothesis fitted well with the data (no difference) NFI (Normed Fit Index) =.989, NNFI (Non-Normed Fit Index) = .988, CFI (Comparative Fit Index) = .996, RMSEA (Root Mean-Square Error of Approximation) = .05 (90% confidence interval is [.000, .097]). These indexes showed that the theoretical model fitted perfectly with the data.

The findings were consistent with our theoretical predictions: Firstly, locus and controllability had direct contributions to judgment of responsibility (βs = .64, .26), anger (βs = .42, .20) and sympathy (βs = -.50, -.06); secondly, locus and controllability had indirect links with help giving by medial responsibility, sympathy and expectation (βs = -.12, .57, -.18); thirdly, stability had direct relations with expectation (β = .32).

At the same time, we found that anger and sympathy had an interrelationship, the correlation between their errors was (r = -.34), and the correlations between locus and controllability, locus and stability, controllability and stability respectively were: rs = .75, .50, .38.

Firstly, the theoretical model of interpersonal attribution and help giving was tested by SEM, and it was found that, on a whole, the model fitted the data well across situations. Causal attributions, responsibility, affect responses and expectation changes could serve as the antecedents of help giving – that is, causal dimensions (locus, controllability and stability) → judgment of responsibility → affect responses (anger and sympathy) and expectation change → help giving.

Secondly, these results further supported our belief that causal locus and stability also were important dimensions that could influence help giving as well as controllability. Locus had direct and indirect links (mediated by judgment of responsibility and affect responses) to help giving, and in Chinese culture, people usually assigned behavior responsibility according to the causal locus. These findings had universality across situations in Chinese culture (also see Zhang, 2003).

Thirdly, since help giving is an important prosocial behavior, these findings have important significance for our understanding of some parts of people’s social life. They told us as “judges” how to weigh the evidence to make inferences about locus, controllability and responsibility, experienced emotion akin to sympathy or anger, and then meted out judgments that entailed either rejection or help.

Finally, although the main findings of this study supported the model of attributional theory as it relates to the judgment of responsibility and help giving, the situations we used to stimulate participants’ responses or reactions were artificially manipulated, and participants gave their response by a role-playing method. So, it is necessary to test the hypothesis of judgment of responsibility and help giving in real contexts and other cultures from an attributional perspective in the future.

In conclusion, this research lets us know more clearly the quantitative relationships among attribution, judgment of responsibility for behavior, affect response and help giving in a much wider frame from an attributional perspective compared with earlier studies. The findings could prove useful in understanding under what situations people are more likely to help others, and how the mediating factors, such as responsibility and affects, function in this kind of decision-making process. Of course, some factors relating to culture and social values were potentially influencing the degree of these relationships. In addition, our results could be extended to the understanding of the other management and social problems that were related with responsibility judgment, such as social justice, punishment, aggression, social relief and the stigmatizing condition.

Dresler-Hawke, E. (2005). Reconstructing the past and attributing the responsibility for the Holocaust. Social Behavior & Personality: an international journal, 33 (2), 133-147.

Farwell, L. (2000). Bleeding hearts and the heartless: Popular perceptions of liberal and conservative ideologies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 845-852.

Rudolph, U., Roesch, S. C., Greitemeyer, T., & Weiner, B. (2004). A meta-analytic review of help giving and aggression from an attribution perspective: Contributions to a general theory of motivation. Cognition and Emotion, 18, 815-848.

Weiner, B. (1995). Judgments of Responsibility: A foundation for a theory of social conduct. New York: The Guilford Press.

Weiner, B. (2000). Intrapersonal and interpersonal theories of motivation from an attributional perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 12, 1-14.

Zhang, A. (2003). The models of judgments of behavior responsibility in Chinese culture from an attributional perspective. Social Behavior & Personality: an international journal, 31 (2), 205- 214.

Dresler-Hawke, E. (2005). Reconstructing the past and attributing the responsibility for the Holocaust. Social Behavior & Personality: an international journal, 33 (2), 133-147.

Farwell, L. (2000). Bleeding hearts and the heartless: Popular perceptions of liberal and conservative ideologies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 845-852.

Rudolph, U., Roesch, S. C., Greitemeyer, T., & Weiner, B. (2004). A meta-analytic review of help giving and aggression from an attribution perspective: Contributions to a general theory of motivation. Cognition and Emotion, 18, 815-848.

Weiner, B. (1995). Judgments of Responsibility: A foundation for a theory of social conduct. New York: The Guilford Press.

Weiner, B. (2000). Intrapersonal and interpersonal theories of motivation from an attributional perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 12, 1-14.

Zhang, A. (2003). The models of judgments of behavior responsibility in Chinese culture from an attributional perspective. Social Behavior & Personality: an international journal, 31 (2), 205- 214.