Three Explorative Studies on Responsibility and Escape from Responsibility: A Facet Theory Approach

Responsibility is often framed as a moral quality reinforced through education, regulation, and sanctions. This paper proposes an alternative view: responsibility as a resource-dependent practice, and escape from responsibility as a distinct phenomenon involving the avoidance of role-taking. Using facet theory, we mapped the semantic field of responsibility across three facets—essence, objects, and required resources—and conducted three exploratory studies. Study One surveyed managers in business and public organizations, showing that intangible resources (e.g., motivation, attentiveness, competence) best predict responsibility. Study Two compared managers in NGOs with those in other organizations, revealing sectoral differences in how responsibility depends on personal traits versus structural resources. Study Three analyzed indicators from 51 countries, identifying patterns of escape from responsibility in attitudinal, familial, and economic domains. Together, the findings challenge the conventional moral view of responsibility, highlight the central role of resources in enabling responsible behavior, and establish escape from responsibility as a distinct construct. The paper demonstrates the value of facet theory for mapping complex social phenomena and offers directions for policy and practice aimed at strengthening the resource foundations of responsibility.

• Responsibility
• Escape from Responsibility
• Facet Theory
• Tangible Resources
• Intangible Resources

1. Introduction

Responsibility refers to the duty to perform tasks and fulfill roles within social, organizational, and institutional contexts. It specifies who holds which role, what that role entails, and what must be done to ensure success. Core features include reliability, commitment, accountability, and considerateness, which together make responsibility essential for the functioning of human systems.

Research traditions in religion, education, law, philosophy, and organizational studies have tended to frame responsibility—whether individual or Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)—as a primarily moral quality that must be cultivated and reinforced through education, incentives, regulation, and sanctions ([20]). Yet this view raises a paradox: if human beings are naturally capable of fulfilling their duties, why must responsibility be externally imposed?¹

This paper advances an alternative perspective, which is focused on responsibility of role incumbents ([14]; [5]; [11]; [2]; [1]; [7]). Responsibility is best understood not only as a moral obligation but as a practice contingent on resources. Like living systems that require inputs to adapt and respond, individuals and organizations need tangible, temporal, and intangible resources to meet their responsibilities. When these resources are lacking, responsibility falters. Moreover, beyond failure within roles lies a different phenomenon: escape from responsibility, the deliberate avoidance of role-taking. Unlike irresponsibility, which implies breakdown within a role, escape concerns refusal to assume the role in the first place.

The aim of this paper is twofold: 1) to map the field of human role responsibility and the resources necessary for fulfilling it, and 2) to distinguish responsibility from escape from responsibility. To achieve this, we employ facet theory, which provides a systematic framework for mapping complex constructs, and apply it in three exploratory studies: a survey of managers, a comparison across organizational sectors, and a cross-national analysis.

2. Facet Theory

Facet theory, developed by Louis Guttman and later expanded by others, offers a systematic approach for analyzing complex social phenomena ([10]; [12]; [16]; [17]; [3]; [6]). Its central contribution is the ability to map a conceptual domain into clearly defined dimensions (“facets”) and categories, expressed in a mapping sentence that specifies the universe of items under study. This method not only structures theoretical constructs but also guides empirical research through multidimensional analysis.

For the present study, facet theory is particularly suited to responsibility because the concept spans multiple meanings and contexts—ranging from moral obligation to practical role performance. By decomposing responsibility into its essence (reliability, commitment, accountability, considerateness), its objects (self, others, things, relationships), and its required resources (tangible, temporal, and intangible), facet theory provides both conceptual clarity and methodological rigor. It also enables us to distinguish systematically between responsibility and escape from responsibility, a phenomenon often overlooked in existing research.

3. Mapping the Field of Responsibility

To ground our framework, we began by examining how responsibility is defined across major dictionaries. Despite variations, several recurring features stand out: responsibility is directed toward someone or something; tied to formal roles or duties; implies reliability and accountability; involves care; and often carries moral or legal dimensions.

From these shared properties, responsibility can be mapped across three core facets.

3.1. Verbal Mode 2

Facet A: Responsibility essence is (low…high): 1. Reliability; 2. Commitment, liability; 3. Ability to decide and act according to assigned duties; 4. Ability to accept responsibility for failures (accountability); 5. Considerateness.

Facet B: Responsibility object is: 1. Individual self³; 2. People, social entities; 3. Things; 4. Relationships.

Facet C: Responsibility requires (little…much) of:

C1: 1. Tangible resources; 2. Time; 3. Intangible resources.

OR:

C2: 1. Physical resources; 2. Knowledge & technology; 3. Financial resources; 4. Skilled workforce; 5. Time; 6. Autonomy; 7. Attentiveness; 8. Motivation; 9. Diligence; 10. Resilience; 11. Management competence.

3.2. Graphical Mode

Figure 1 Figure 2

3.3. Elaboration of the Facets

Facet A: Essence of Responsibility

Responsibility expresses itself through several interconnected qualities ([18]). Reliability means that others can trust a role-holder to act predictably and competently, both in routine and in crises. Commitment anchors future-oriented behavior, providing assurance that obligations will be met despite uncertainty. Authority to act links responsibility to the capacity for decision and action; when authority is lacking or unused, duties often remain unmet. Accountability ensures that outcomes are traceable to individuals rather than diffused across groups ([7]). Finally, considerateness adds a relational dimension, emphasizing care for role partners alongside task performance.

Facet B: Objects of Responsibility

Responsibility is always directed toward something. At the most basic level, it involves responsibility for the self, including physical and mental well-being. It extends outward to other people and social entities such as families, teams, organizations, or nations. It also covers things—work assignments, products, services, and environments. Finally, it applies to relationships, which require maintenance and care distinct from responsibility toward individuals.⁴

Facet C: Required Resources

Assuming responsibility depends on resources that enable role performance. Tangible resources include physical means, financial support, and technology. Time is a universal constraint: without it, even capable actors cannot fulfill obligations. Intangible resources—knowledge, motivation, diligence, resilience, autonomy, and competence—emerged as especially critical. These resources allow individuals and organizations to translate commitments into effective action and distinguish between merely holding a role and fulfilling it responsibly.

4. Study One: Perceived Responsibility among Managers in Work Organizations (Business and Public)

This study explores the proposed conceptualization of perceived responsibility among managers in work organizations (business and public).⁵ Hypotheses (controlling for job title, gender, and age) are:

H1: Responsibility toward people, things, and relationships (Facet B) is best predicted by all ten perceived resources in Facet C2.

H2: These domains are differentially predicted by subsets of resources in Facet C1.

4.1. Sample and Methodology

A self‑report online questionnaire of 30 items (constructed from the mapping sentence) was administered to a convenience industry-mixed sample of 115 respondents:

56 managers from Dun & Bradstreet’s list of Israeli leading managers (2021).20 managers from a major governmental infrastructure company.22 administrative managers in a large Israeli university.6 managers from a large Israeli food company.12 American CEOs from the New York area.

The obvious limiting generalizability of this sample derives from the explorative nature of this study.

Scales (Cronbach’sreliability test α):

Responsibility toward people (α = .79), things (α = .68), relationships (α = .76) - each built from the Facet A elements.Resources: (i) 10 perceived resources (α = .93) in Facet C2; (ii) tangible resources + time (α = .87); (iii) intangible resources (α = .92) in Facet C1.

Analysis: Linear regression analyses tested the hypotheses.

4.2. Results

Table 1 depicts the common and different impacts of resources and personal background on several responsibility objects.

1) H1 was partially supported for responsibility toward people and relationships, but not for responsibility toward things.

2) H2 was confirmed for all three domains.

3) Intangible resources were the strongest predictors across domains.

4) Job title predicted responsibility toward people and relationships, but not toward things.

5) Age predicted responsibility toward people, but not toward things or relationships.

4.3. Discussion

These findings challenge the view that responsibility (including CSR) chiefly

Table 1. Linear regression analysis predicting responsibility objects

Table 1

Dep. Var.	Responsibility toward people, social entities			Responsibility toward things			Responsibility toward relationships
Predictors	R	Adj. R 2	Beta	R	Adj. R 2	Beta	R	Adj. R 2	Beta
H1:	.471*	.192*		.291	.050		.428*	.152*
10 resources			.182*			.141			.203*
Title			.235*			.160			.295*
Gender			−.071			−.054			−.032
Age			.216*			.081			.071
H2:	.509*	.223*		.343*	.075*		.457*	.171*
Tang. Res.+t			−.186			−.190			−.128
Intang. Res.			.383*			.344*			.347*
Title			.224*			.150			.285*
Gender			−.052			−.036			−.016
Age			.212*			.077			.067

*Significant: p ≤ .05.

requires external reinforcement. Instead, conditions, especially intangible resources, determine whether managers fulfill responsibilities effectively. Notably, responsibility toward “things” resisted prediction, and tangible resources were weak predictors overall.

5. Study Two: Perceived Responsibility among Managers in Work Organizations vs. Managers in NGOs

NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations) differ from business and public organizations. Their primary responsibility is to their voluntarist goals and articles. When providing services, NGOs depend on volunteers and donors; responsibility toward these constituencies is more vital than conventional CSR practices.

5.1. Mapping Sentence (A Different Version from Study One)

Facet A: Responsibility is (low-high): reliability; commitment; accountability.

Facet B: Toward: people/social entities; things; relationships.

Facet C: Requires (little-much): tangible resources; time; intangible resources (C1). Or expanded C2 resources as above.

Hypotheses

1) Responsibility (Facet A) is predicted in a path model directly by perceived tangible and intangible resources.

2) Responsibility (Facet A) is predicted directly and indirectly by respondent characteristics (job title, gender, age).

5.2. Sample and Methodology

115 respondents from Study One (work organizations).73 respondents from Israeli NGOs certified with the “Tav Midot” quality standard (2023) answered a self-report online questionnaire.

Scales: (work orgs; NGOs):

reliability (α = .78; .68), commitment (α = .67; .64), accountability (α = .78; .91).tangible resources + time (α = .74; .58); intangible resources (α = .79; .77).All scales were dichotomized around their medians.

Analysis: Unweighted Least Squares estimates using IBM AMOS 28 assessed the hypothesized path model (GFI as fit index).

5.3. Results

Figure 1 shows a comparison of a path model to explain the essence of work organizations versus NGOs.

1) In both sectors, intangible resources strongly predicted responsibility, especially accountability. Tangible resources were insignificant.

2) Personal characteristics had stronger associations with perceived responsibility among NGO managers than among managers in work organizations.

Figure 3

Figure 1.Path diagrams for work organizations versus NGOs.

5.4. Discussion

As in Study One, attention should shift from the “responsible person” to the conditions—particularly intangible resources—that enable or impede fulfillment of duties. Enhancing intangible resources has notable potential for strengthening responsibility in NGOs.

6. Study Three: Escape from Responsibility

Beyond resource deficits lies a distinct phenomenon: escape from responsibility. In the previous studies, irresponsible behavior was suggested to stem from a lack of resources to attain roles’ duties and responsibilities. Unlike irresponsibility (failure within a role), escape denotes avoiding role‑taking altogether, recalling [8] analysis in his Escape from Freedom. It is a rational choice in face of uncertainties, but also a coping mechanism to deal with structural economic and social constraints. Therefore, this relatively new discovery requires a different mapping sentence as follows.⁶

6.1. Verbal Mode

Facet A: Elements of escape (low…high) 1. From commitment, liability; 2. From action/decision; 3. From accountability; From considerateness.Facet B: Objects of escape: 1. Oneself; 2. Relationships; 3. People, social entities; 4. Things.Facet C: Forms of escape: 1. Doing; 2. Attitudes.

6.2. Graphical Mode

Figure 4

6.3. Sample and Methodology

38 countries of the OECD + other 13 countries that are reported by OECD in its “Society at Glance” series 2024, provide the data for this study.⁷

Five indices were selected:⁸

Behavioral: fertility rate decline; marriage rate decline; NEED (not in education, employment, or training).Attitudinal: “child income governmental support is inadequate”⁹; “not at all interested in politics”. ¹⁰All indices were dichotomized around OECD averages (1 = no indication of escape; 2 = indication of escape).

Analyses: Smallest Space Analysis (SSA), Partial Order Scalogram Analysis Coordinates (POSAC) and Weak Monotonicity coefficients (MONCO) were employed, using Hebrew University Statistical Package (HUDAP) version‑8. ¹¹

6.4. Results

1)SSA revealed a circumplex (polarizing) pattern (Figure 2) with three radial circles:

Inner circle: attitudinal escape (political disinterest; perceived inadequacy of child support).Middle circle: familial escape (low fertility; low marriage).Outer circle: labor market escape (NEED).

These represent distinct levels of analysis: one may examine the attitudinal level or focus on behavioral levels (family or labor market participation). This structure suggests that escape occurs at progressively broader social levels, from attitudes, through family, to economic participation.

2) Profiles of Behavioral Escape

POSAC of the behavioral indices (fertility decline, marriage decline, NEED) yielded profiles showing partial orders among countries (Figure 3). No profile with uniformly low escape (---) appeared in the sample. Profiles containing high elements (+) displayed stronger escape on the joint (vertical) dimension. Among 51 countries, 36 exhibited two or three high escape elements. On the lateral (horizontal) dimension, escape appeared more in family domains than in economic activity (34 vs. 2 countries), while 13 countries showed economic escape.

Figure 5

Figure 2.Smallest Space Analysis (SSA) for 5 indices of escape from responsibility.

Figure 6 Figure 7

Figure 3. POSAC analysis for 3 behavioral elements of escape from responsibility.

6.5. Discussion

Escape from responsibility appears widespread in many countries, more pronounced in familial/relational spheres than in economic life. This suggests structural shifts in how responsibility is avoided at societal levels and merits further conceptual and empirical study.

7. Summary and Conclusion

This paper redefines responsibility as a resource-dependent practice rather than a purely moral trait and introduces escape from responsibility as a distinct social phenomenon. Using facet theory, we mapped responsibility across its essence, objects, and required resources, and tested this framework through three exploration studies.

Study One showed that responsibility among managers is shaped far more by intangible resources—such as motivation, attentiveness, and competence—than by tangible assets. Study Two confirmed this pattern across sectors, while also revealing that NGOs rely more heavily on personal commitment, whereas business and public organizations depend on structured resources. Study Three extended the analysis to the societal level, identifying patterned forms of escape from responsibility in attitudinal, familial, and economic domains across 51 countries.

Together, these findings challenge the conventional view of responsibility as something that must be externally enforced through sanctions or incentives. Instead, they demonstrate that responsibility flourishes when individuals and organizations are equipped with the resources to act, and falters when those resources are absent. Moreover, the concept of escape from responsibility highlights that avoidance of roles is not simply irresponsibility, but a patterned and measurable response with significant implications for societies.

By applying facet theory, this paper provides a systematic way to disentangle the complexity of responsibility and its avoidance. For research, this opens new avenues to explore how resources, structures, and norms interact across levels of analysis. For practice, it suggests shifting from punishment and enforcement toward capacity building—strengthening the intangible and structural resources that enable responsible behavior.

In sum, responsibility is less about moral exhortation and more about creating the conditions that allow individuals, organizations, and societies to assume and fulfill their roles. Recognizing this shift is key to understanding both the fulfillment and the escape of responsibility in the modern world.

8. General Discussion and Outlook

Theoretical considerations

The shift from morality to resources challenges conventional approaches. Yet moral norms and resource conditions are often intertwined: norms can motivate investment of resources, while resource deficits can be framed as moral failures. Future work should investigate these interactions and further refine the conceptual boundary between irresponsibility (failure within a role) and escape (avoidance of roles).

8.1. Methodological Scope

The studies provide valuable insights but also face limitations. Part of these shortcomings is due to the explorative nature of the study. Managerial surveys were based on convenience samples, limiting generalizability. Cross-national indicators of escape—fertility decline, marriage decline, NEED rates, political disinterest, and dissatisfaction with child support—may partly reflect structural constraints rather than voluntary avoidance. Future studies should employ representative and longitudinal designs, test alternative indicators, and develop multilevel models linking individual resource deficits to organizational and societal patterns.

8.2. Conceptual Refinement

The dual resource schemes (C1 and C2) offered here were analytically useful but risked fragmenting the construct. Consolidating them into a validated taxonomy that integrates tangible and intangible resources is a priority for future research. Likewise, connections across levels of analysis deserve closer attention: whether the same resource-based mechanisms scale consistently from individuals to organizations and societies remains an open question.

8.3. Interpretation of Findings

Certain results invite further theorization. In Study One, responsibility toward “things” was weakly predicted by resources, suggesting a stronger influence of formal structures. In Study Two, NGO managers’ responsibility was more dependent on personal traits, possibly reflecting the voluntarist ethos of NGOs. In Study Three, escape from responsibility clustered into attitudinal, familial, and economic domains, raising the question of whether escape should be interpreted as a social pathology, an adaptive strategy, or a shift in cultural norms.

8.4. Policy and Practice

Viewing responsibility as contingent on resources suggests a move beyond sanction-based approaches toward capacity building. Organizations and policymakers can:

Strengthen intangible resources by fostering motivation, attentiveness, resilience, and competence through training, mentoring, and supportive cultures.

Design supportive structures that align authority with responsibility, ensure autonomy, and reduce overload.

Tailor strategies to sectors, with NGOs emphasizing leadership development and volunteer support, and public/business organizations prioritizing structural resource allocation.

Address societal escape through policies that reduce barriers to role-taking, such as family support programs, civic education, and labor-market integration.

In sum, responsibility is neither an inherent moral trait nor solely an externally enforced obligation. It is best understood as a practice shaped by resources, conditions, and roles. Recognizing this shift allows both researchers and practitioners to better explain variations in responsibility, identify patterns of escape, and design interventions that enable individuals, organizations, and societies to meet their responsibilities more effectively.

NOTES

¹In the domain of work organizations and management, [9] points to the difficulties and ambivalence in training of MBA students to behave in a socially responsible manner as managers, in contrast with the clear training to maximize profits.

²In ORANGE: elements that I have discovered important during the ongoing development of the mapping sentence AFTER the first two empirical studies, and they are not explored yet.

³[1].

⁴On the uniqueness of relationships versus individuals or people, see [19].

⁵On the difference between responsibility duties and perceived duties see [13].

⁶In orange: elements that have been explored empirically in the third study.

⁷Australia, Japan, Austria, Korea, Belgium, Latvia, Canada, Lithuania, Chile, Luxembourg, Colombia, Mexico, Czechia, Netherlands, Costa Rica, New Zealand, Denmark, Norway, Estonia, Poland, Finland, Portugal, France, Slovak Republic, Germany, Slovenia, Greece, Spain, Hungary, Sweden, Iceland, Switzerland, Ireland, Türkiye, Israel, United Kingdom, Italy, United States, Argentina, Brazil, Bulgaria, China, Croatia, India, Indonesia, Peru, Romania, Saudi Arabia, South Africa.

⁸[15]:

⁹[4].

¹⁰There are possibly many other behavioral and attitudinal indices of escape from responsibility. The concern to keep the integrity of the data set (OECD Society at Glance) in this explorative phase determined the choice of these items.

¹¹Dichotomization is a common practice in non-metric analyses such as SSA, POSAC and MONCO.

References

1.. Allen, T. D., Cho, E., Shockley, K. M., & Biga, A. (2018). A Cross-National View of Personal Responsibility for Work-Life Balance. In K. M. Shockley, W. Shen, & R. C. Johnson (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Global Work-Family Interface (pp. 733-746). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108235556.040 10.1017/9781108235556.040https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108235556.040 Allen, T. Cho, E. Shockley, K. Biga, A. Shockley, W. 2018 10.1017/9781108235556.040

2.. Auhagen, A. E., & Bierhoff, H. W. (2001). Responsibility: The Many Faces of a Social Phenomenon. Routledge. Auhagen, A. Bierhoff, H. 2001

3.. Borg, I., & Shye, S. (1995). Facet Theory: Form and Content. Sage. Borg, I. Shye, S. 1995

4.. Bridgeman, J. (2007). Accountability, Support or Relationship? Conceptions of Parental Responsibility. Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly, 58, 307-324. Bridgeman, J. Accountability, S 2007

5.. Cane, P. (2016). Role Responsibility. The Journal of Ethics, 20, 279-298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10892-016-9235-8 10.1007/s10892-016-9235-8https://doi.org/10.1007/s10892-016-9235-8 Cane, P. 2016 10.1007/s10892-016-9235-8

6.. Canter, D. (1985). Facet Theory: Approaches to Social Research. Springer Verlag. Canter, D. 1985

7.. Christensen, S. S. (2019). Escape from the Diffusion of Responsibility: A Review and Guide for Nurses. Journal of Nursing Management, 27, 264-270. https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.12677 10.1111/jonm.1267730178904https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.12677 Christensen, S. 2019 10.1111/jonm.12677 30178904

8.. Fromm, E. (1941). Escape from Freedom. Farrar & Rinehart. Fromm, E. 1941

9.. Globerman, S. (2011). The Social Responsibility of Managers: Reassessing and Integrating Diverse Perspectives. Business and Society Review, 116, 509-532. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8594.2011.00394.x 10.1111/j.1467-8594.2011.00394.xhttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8594.2011.00394.x Globerman, S. 2011 10.1111/j.1467-8594.2011.00394.x

10.. Guttman, L. (1959). Introduction to Facet Design and Analysis. Acta Psychologica, 15, 130-138. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(59)90023-x 10.1016/0001-6918(59)90023-xhttps://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(59)90023-x Guttman, L. 1959 6918 59 10.1016/0001-6918(59)90023-x

11.. Hart, H. L. A. (1968). Punishment and Responsibility. Clarendon Press. Hart, H. 1968

12.. Levi, S. (2014). Facet Theory. In A. C. Michalos (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research (pp. 2112-2119). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0753-5_978 10.1007/978-94-007-0753-5_978https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0753-5_978 Levi, S. 2014 10.1007/978-94-007-0753-5_978

13.. Maclagan, P. W. (1983). The Concept of Responsibility: Some Implications for Organizational Behaviour and Development. Journal of Management Studies, 20, 411-423. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1983.tb00216.x 10.1111/j.1467-6486.1983.tb00216.xhttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1983.tb00216.x Maclagan, P. 1983 10.1111/j.1467-6486.1983.tb00216.x

14.. Negru, I., & Dolfsma, W. (2022). Towards a Concept of Responsibility for Economics. New Political Economy, 27, 895-905. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2022.2038116 10.1080/13563467.2022.2038116https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2022.2038116 Negru, I. Dolfsma, W. 2022 10.1080/13563467.2022.2038116

15.. OECD (2024). Society at a Glance 2024: OECD Social Indicators. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/918d8db3-en 10.1787/918d8db3-enhttps://doi.org/10.1787/918d8db3-en 2024 10.1787/918d8db3-en

16.. Shye, S. (1999). Facet Theory. In S. Kotz (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of Statistical Sciences(Vol. 3, pp. 231-239). Wiley. Shye, S. 1999

17.. Shye, S., & Elizur, D. (1994). Introduction to Facet Theory. SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412984645 10.4135/9781412984645https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412984645 Shye, S. Elizur, D. Publications, I 1994 10.4135/9781412984645

18.. SpriggHR (2020). Responsibility vs Accountability: What’s the Difference? SpriggHR Blog. https://sprigghr.com/blog/hr-professionals/responsibility-vs-accountability-whats-the-difference/ 2020

19.. Vogel, M. (1970). The Concept of Responsibility in the Thought of Martin Buber. Harvard Theological Review, 63, 159-182. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0017816000004107 10.1017/s0017816000004107https://doi.org/10.1017/s0017816000004107 Vogel, M. 1970 10.1017/s0017816000004107

20.. Vogelmann, F. (2020). Keep Score and Punish: Brandom’s Concept of Responsibility. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 46, 922-941. https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453719866243 10.1177/0191453719866243https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453719866243 Vogelmann, F. 2020 10.1177/0191453719866243