Contrary to common expectations and a good deal of legal folk wisdom, several surveys have failed to find group differences in the way people attribute responsibility and assign punishments. These
nonfinding,
suggest that there is a considerable degree of consensus about how to judge wrongdoing. The nature of this consensus is examined using survey data collected in two Japanese and one American cities. We examine the extent of group differences in the evaluation of inputs (here a set of hypothetical vignettes), decision rules, and punishments. The paper concludes with a discussion of the conceptual, theoretical, and methodological issues raised by these and similar findings of small group differences. Collectively, these three issues define, an agenda for future research on the nature and extent of a
common law
of responsibility.
This is a revised version of a paper presented at the 1986 meeting of the Law and Society Association. The research was supported by seed funds from the Social Science Research Council and from the University of Michigan and by N.S.F. grant No. SOC 77-242918. Japanese data were gathered and analyzed with support from the Nihon Gakujutsu Shinkokai and Mombusho to the Japanese investigators: Yoko Hosoi, Zensuke Ishimura, Nozomu Matsubara, Haruo Nishimura, Nobuho Tomita, and Kazuhiko Tokoro. They have recently published a book on the project. (Ishimura et al., 1986).