No Body to Kick,No Soul to Damn: Responsibility and Accountability for the Financial Crisis (2007–2010)

This article takes the 2008–2010 financial crisis as a case study to explore the tension between responsibility and accountability in complex crises. I analyze the patterns of attribution and assumption of responsibility of thirty-three bankers in Wall Street, interviewed from fall 2008 to summer 2010. First, I show that responsibility for complex failures cannot be easily attributed or assumed: responsibility becomes diluted within the collective. Actors can only assume collective responsibility, recognizing that they belong to an institution at fault. Second, I show that blaming is a social process that should be examined contextually, relationally, and dynamically. I build on sociological theories to depart from the normative focus of philosophers, and the cognitive focus of psychologists, who have dominated the study of responsibility so far.     

Does One Bad Apple(Juice) Spoil the Bunch? Implicit Attitudes Toward One Product Transfer to Other Products by the Same Brand

If people like a product, they will automatically like another product from the same brand even if they do not know anything about it (demonstrated in Study 1). In one sense, this may be a reasonable inference—brands that have one good product may be likely to have other good products. But what if people learn that the second product is actually not good? Explicitly, people act as expected—the second product is disliked based on its negative features. Implicitly, however, people's positive attitude toward the first product still influences their liking of the second (Study 2). This attitude transfer effect (Ranganath & Nosek, 2008) shows that people are able to avoid using the qualities of one product to judge another explicitly. But, implicitly, once an attitude is formed toward a brand's product, other products by that brand will inherit some of the original evaluation regardless of their unique qualities.