The master’s thesis investigates the influence of counterfactual framing on blame attribution in legal contexts, comparing the susceptibility of legal scholars and laypeople. The study empirically examined whether presenting possible alternative actions by either the victim or the perpetrator (in a counterfactual manner) that could have prevented the negative outcome affects blame attribution and whether such judgment influences recommendations for legal punishment. A total of 240 participants were divided into two groups based on their legal education (legal scholars vs. laypeople). Each participant read five crime vignettes and was randomly presented, for each vignette, with either a counterfactual sentence focused on the victim or one focused on the perpetrator. After reading each vignette, participants completed a questionnaire assessing blame attribution and the recommended severity of legal punishment for the perpetrator. The results showed no significant effect of counterfactual framing on blame attribution and no significant difference between legal scholars and laypeople in their susceptibility to such framing. However, the third hypothesis was supported: participants who attributed more blame to the victim tended to recommend less severe legal punishment for the perpetrator. These findings contribute to the literature on victim-blaming, framing effects, counterfactuals, and legal decision-making, especially within the emerging field of experimental jurisprudence. Directions for future research are proposed to further examine the role of counterfactual framing in legal contexts.
|
