Outgroup Homogeneity Effect

Kajanová, Alena; Kmecová, Iveta

doi:10.4135/9781412972017.n192

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A large body of research has shown that people perceive ingroup members differently than outgroup members (e.g., Bente et al, 2016;Brauer, 2001;McGarty & Penny, 1988). The outgroup homogeneity effect (Judd & Kervyn, 2010;Mullen & Hu, 1989) is a wellsupported phenomenon for various domains of intergroup perception, which has already been demonstrated for age groups (Linville et al, 1989). It refers to the observation that people are less sensitive to differences between outgroup members than to differences between ingroup members (e.g., Bente et al, 2016).…”

Section: Outgroup Homogeneity Ingroup Differentiation and Collective Responsibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…First, in most intergroup contexts, there are more opportunities to interact with ingroup members than with outgroup members, and to encounter more diverse exemplars in the ingroup, which enhances perceived ingroup variability (Mullen & Hu, 1989). Second, people might pay less attention to differentiating attributes among outgroup members than ingroup members, creating a more complex representation of the ingroup (Judd & Kervyn, 2010;Messick & Mackie, 1989). However, when ingroup norms are salient or when familiarity with outgroup members is high, ingroup homogeneity effects may also occur (Rubin & Badea, 2007).…”

Section: Outgroup Homogeneity Ingroup Differentiation and Collective Responsibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

When company decisions harm or help the environment: the influence of social context and affective state on moral and causal responsibility attributions

Roth

Kaspar

2021

Curr Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Holding companies accountable for their decisions’ environmental side effects becomes increasingly important in the light of current debates on the climate crisis. The present study investigated a young sample’s (n = 925) causal and moral responsibility attributions to a company’s manager and their subordinate employee, who were either young or middle-aged. The agents jointly made a profit-oriented decision which either harmed or helped the environment. Results were analyzed with respect to the valence of the side effect, the agents’ social role, the agents’ age group, and participants’ affective state. We successfully replicated findings from prior studies, showing that more intention and moral responsibility is ascribed to the manager in case of a negative side effect than in case of a positive side effect, and that the manager deserves more blame for negative side effects than the employee, whereas the employee deserves more praise for positive side effects. Additionally, responsibility attributions varied with the agents’ age group, participants’ positive and negative affective state, and participants’ gender. By incorporating these hitherto neglected factors, the study complements existing theories of responsibility attribution and intergroup perception. The findings further highlight the contribution of affective mechanisms as driving factors of responsibility attributions. Combining moral responsibility research, intergroup research, and affective measures promises to foster the understanding of how and to whom people ascribe blame, praise, and causal responsibility for environmental consequences.

show abstract

Section: Outgroup Homogeneity Ingroup Differentiation and Collective Responsibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Outgroup Homogeneity Ingroup Differentiation and Collective Responsibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

When company decisions harm or help the environment: the influence of social context and affective state on moral and causal responsibility attributions

Roth

Kaspar

2021

Curr Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Outgroup Homogeneity Effect

Cited by 1 publication

References 0 publications

When company decisions harm or help the environment: the influence of social context and affective state on moral and causal responsibility attributions

When company decisions harm or help the environment: the influence of social context and affective state on moral and causal responsibility attributions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About