This Article Full Text (PDF) Free References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (3) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Denson, T. F. Articles by Ames, D. R. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

The Roles of Entitativity and Essentiality in Judgments of Collective Responsibility

Brian Lickel

Mathew Curtis

Douglas M. Stenstrom

University of Southern California

Daniel R. Ames

Columbia University

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.

Key Words: collective responsibility • entitativity • essentialism • lay theories • intergroup relations

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?