The author discusses the interdisciplinary field of psychology and law, particularly research on the attribution of responsibility. He concludes that the law approaches responsibility somewhat differently from social psychology, and this is why interdisciplinary research is useful. Noting that many of the papers reviewed imply large between-culture variations as well as minor within-culture differences in the attribution of responsibility for behavior, the author argues that inter-cultural and intra-cultural differences may explain only minor portions of overall behavioral variances; universal determinants of human behavior may be more important. For instance, people can be group-oriented in even the most individualistic of cultures. Relatively abstract distinctions such as individualism versus collectivism are often used as independent variables in cross-cultural studies that simultaneously use sophisticated, complex dependent variables. At best, these studies might be merely correlational, and the distinction between independent and dependent variables is arbitrary. Bond et al. make a useful contribution when they suggest that culture be operationalized, for instance, in terms of expectancy and valence associated with particular outcomes. This approach notes which differences are crucial in terms of value types, expectancies, etc., in accounting for behavioral variances. The article concludes with a discussion of the implications of cross-cultural studies in a rapidly changing world. 16 references and an article abstract in French