Association, Culture, and Collective Imprisonment: Tests of a Two-Route Causal-Moral Model

Abstract

The authors tested a model in which a group's association with an offender impacts collective imprisonment indirectly via dispositional attribution and blame to the group, culture does so indirectly via blame, and severity of outcome directly determines imprisonment. In two experiments, Easterners and Westerners made dispositional attribution, blame, and imprisonment responses to an offender's group associated with him by commission versus omission and with high versus low severity of outcome for the victim. Commission generated higher responses to the group than did omission. Collective blame Correspondence should be sent to Ramadhar Singh, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management Area,

Interventions Highlighting Hypocrisy Reduce Collective Blame of Muslims for Individual Acts of Violence and Assuage Anti-Muslim Hostility

“…Previous research has demonstrated the relevance of collective blame in organizational settings, showing that companies, schools, and even loosely affiliated groups of people are held responsible for the harmful actions of individual group members ( Chiu, Morris, Hong, & Menon, 2000 ; Manchi Chao, Zhang, & Chiu, 2008 ; Menon, Morris, Chiu, & Hong, 1999 ; Singh et al, 2012 ; Zemba, Young, & Morris, 2006 ). Much of this research has focused on identifying differences in the tendency to engage in collective blame in Eastern versus Western cultures (e.g., Chiu et al, 2000 ; Manchi Chao et al, 2008 ), on discerning the psychological precursors of collective blame, including perceived outgroup homogeneity and entitativity (e.g., Denson, Lickel, Curtis, Stenstrom, & Ames, 2006 ; Lickel et al, 2006 ), and on examining the consequences of collective blame—namely, exacting revenge on people from an offending group who were uninvolved of the offense (i.e., “vicarious retribution”; Lickel et al, 2006 ; Stenstrom, Lickel, Denson, & Miller, 2008 ).…”

Desiring to punish leaders: A new test of the model of people as intuitive prosecutors

“…The manager's behaviors and the desired punishment were the independent variable (IV) and the dependent variable (DV), respectively. As in the previous two Asian studies (Singh & Lin, 2011;Singh et al, 2012), the four measures were empirically distinct. Further, means of the four prosecutorial responses were higher to a seemingly unfair than fair manager.…”

“…That is, people direct their (a) thoughts at detecting cheaters and free riders in the society and (b) emotions and actions at closing of the loopholes in the norms and rules violated (e.g., Goldberg et al 1999). The former is achieved by causal attributions to the wrongdoing (e.g., internal or external, person or situation, Heider, 1958;Kelley, 1973), and the latter by matching the normative sanctions with the rule or norm flouted (Singh et al, 2012;Tetlock et al, 2007Tetlock et al, , 2010. The prosecutorial mind recedes only when the wrongdoer is adequately punished (Goldberg et al, 1999;Lerner et al, 1998;Tetlock et al, 2007).…”

“…Given that the MV and punishment responses to offenders loaded on a single factor, Tetlock et al (2007) used the single composite measure of attributional punitiveness in testing the model with North Americans. However, subsequent studies of Asians found evidence for a multidimensional structure of the prosecutorial mind (Singh & Lin, 2011;Singh et al, 2012) which broadened the scope for specifying the causal relation among the MVs themselves.…”

Research Productivity in Management Schools of India: A Directional Benefit-of-Doubt Model Analysis

“…Second, there is a growing trend of publishing an article with multiple authors. For example, the present second author, who published singleauthored articles in 1970s [30,31], 1980s [32,33] and 1990s [34][35][36], has recently been publishing articles authored with 8 to 10 colleagues and/or students to train these younger generation of scholars [37,38].…”