There is ample evidence that violations of injunctive norms impact ordinary causal attributions. This has struck some as deeply surprising, taking the ordinary concept of causation to be purely descriptive. Our explanation of the findings—the responsibility view—rejects this: we contend that the concept is in fact partly normative, being akin to concepts like responsibility and accountability. Based on this account, we predicted a very different pattern of results for causal attributions when an agent violates a statistical norm. And this pattern has been borne out by the data (Sytsma et al. 2012; Livengood et al. 2017; Sytsma n.d.-a). These predictions were based on the responsibility attributions that we would make. In this paper, I extend these previous findings, testing responsibility attributions. The results confirm the basis of our predictions, showing the same pattern of effects previously found for causal attributions for both injunctive norms and statistical norms. In fact, the results for responsibility attributions are not statistically significantly different from those previously found for causal attributions. I argue that this close correspondence lends further credence to the responsibility view over competing explanations of the impact of norms on causal attributions.

有充分的证据表明，违反禁令规范会影响普通的因果归因。这让一些人深感惊讶，因为因果关系的普通概念纯粹是描述性的。我们对调查结果的解释——责任观——驳斥了这一点：我们认为这个概念实际上是部分规范的，类似于责任和问责制等概念。基于这个解释，当代理违反统计规范时，我们预测了因果归因的结果模式非常不同。数据证实了这种模式（Sytsma 等人，2012 年；Livengood 等人，2017 年；Sytsma nd-a）。这些预测是基于我们将做出的责任归因。在本文中，我扩展了之前的这些发现，测试了责任归属。结果证实了我们预测的基础，显示了先前在禁令规范和统计规范的因果归因中发现的相同影响模式。事实上，责任归因的结果与先前发现的因果归因的结果在统计上没有显着差异。我认为，这种密切的对应关系进一步证实了责任观点，而不是规范对因果归因的影响的相互竞争的解释。