The roles of entitativity and essentiality in judgments of collective responsibility

95Citations
Citations of this article
138Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

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. Copyright © 2006 SAGE Publications (London), Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Denson, T. F., Lickel, B., Curtis, M., Stenstrom, D. M., & Ames, D. R. (2006). The roles of entitativity and essentiality in judgments of collective responsibility. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 9(1), 43–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430206059857

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free