Location of Repository

Intergroup Relations

By Thomas F. Denson, Brian Lickel, Mathew Curtis, Douglas M. Stenstrom and Daniel R. AmesThomas F. Denson, Brian Lickel, Mathew Curtis, M. Stenstrom and Daniel R. Ames

Abstract

Two studies investigated the roles of entitativity and essentiality in judgments of collective responsibility. Analyses focused on four group types (i.e. intimacy groups, task groups, social categories, and loose associations). Repeated measures analyses revealed that intimacy groups and task groups were rated highest in entitativity while intimacy groups and social categories were rated highest in essentiality. Correlational analyses revealed that entitativity played a more central role in judgments of collective responsibility for all four group types. However, tests of interaction effects revealed that essentiality moderated the effect of entitativity on blame judgments. Implications of the role of collective responsibility in intergroup relations are discussed. keywords collective responsibility, entitativity, essentialism, lay theories, intergroup relations SHOULD parents be held responsible for the bad acts of their children? Were all Germans to blame for the Holocaust? Are all the employees of a company accountable for the criminal act

Year: 2006
OAI identifier: oai:CiteSeerX.psu:10.1.1.413.4551
Provided by: CiteSeerX
Download PDF:
Sorry, we are unable to provide the full text but you may find it at the following location(s):
  • http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v... (external link)
  • http://www.columbia.edu/~da358... (external link)
  • Suggested articles


    To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.