Participants recalled instances when they felt vicariously ashamed or guilty for another’s wrongdoing and rated their appraisals of the event and resulting motivations. The study tested aspects of social association that uniquely predict vicarious shame and guilt. Results suggest that the experience of vicarious shame and vicarious guilt are distinguishable. Vicarious guilt was predicted by one’s perceived interdependence with the wrongdoer (e.g. high interpersonal interaction), an appraisal of control over the event, and a motivation to repair the other person’s wrongdoing. Vicarious shame was predicted by the relevance of the event to a shared social identity with the wrongdoer, an appraisal of self-image threat, and a motivation to distance from the event. Implications for intergroup behavior and emotion are discussed

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 acts of a few coworkers? Are all Palestinians to blame for the act of a single suicide bomber? Each of these questions concerns group-based, or collective, responsibility. The formal legal system provides one answer to such questions and, with few exceptions, holds responsible and punishes only the direct causal agents of a bad act. However, a growing body of research indicates that lay people cast a broader net in assigning blame. In many instances, lay people appear to believe that shared group membership with a wrongdoer is a basis for blame.Collective responsibility refers to how perceivers assign blame to individuals who were not direct causal agents of negative events but

No abstract

The outcome of a graduate student's hunt for employment is often attributed to the student's own accomplishments, the reputation of the department, and the reputation of the university. In 2007, a national survey of psychology graduate students was conducted to assess accomplishments and experiences in graduate school, part of which was an assessment of employment after completion of the doctorate (PhD). Five hundred and fifty-one respondents who had applied for employment reported whether they had obtained employment and in what capacity. Survey results were then integrated with the National Research Council's most recent official ranking system of academic departments. The strongest predictor of employment was department-level rankings even while controlling for individual accomplishments, such as publications, posters, and teaching experience. Equally accomplished applicants for an employment position were not equal, apparently, if they graduated from differently ranked departments. The results also show the degree to which school-level rankings, department-level rankings, and individual accomplishments uniquely predict the various types of employment, including jobs at PhD-granting institutions, master's-granting institutions, liberal arts colleges, 2-year schools, outside academia, or no employment at all.