Collective punishment depends on collective responsibility and political organization of the target group

Pereira, Andrea; Berent, Jacques; Falomir‐Pichastor, Juan Manuel; Staerklé, Christian; Butera, Fabrizio

doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2014.09.001

Cited by 15 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We rather suggest that the value of democracy infuses any justice judgment in relation with democratic and nondemocratic groups. In support for this argument, other studies have found that support for the punishment of the group leader closely followed the pattern of support for the collective punishment of the group (Pereira et al, ). In order to provide a clear answer to this question, future research should compare different justice judgments, such as support for the offender punishment and perceived wrongdoing legitimacy within the same experiment to test whether the same dynamics emerge.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

In the name of democracy: The value of democracy explains leniency towards wrongdoings as a function of group political organization

Pereira

Falomir‐Pichastor

Berent

et al. 2015

Euro J Social Psych

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

According to the “democracy‐as‐value” hypothesis, democracy has become an ideological belief system providing social value to democratic individuals, groups and institutions, granting legitimacy to their actions (even if dishonest or violent), and protecting them from consecutive punishments. The present research investigates the extent to which this legitimizing process is based on the individual endorsement of democratic principles. Across four experiments, following the misdeed of a (few) group member(s), respondents who valued democratic group organization and democracy in general expressed more lenient retributive justice judgments towards democratic (as compared with nondemocratic) offender groups. These findings shed light on the ways in which democratic ideology infuses justice judgments. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

In the name of democracy: The value of democracy explains leniency towards wrongdoings as a function of group political organization

Pereira

Falomir‐Pichastor

Berent

et al. 2015

Euro J Social Psych

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In spite of that, punishments often are inflicted upon people for a wrongdoing that they did not commit: Collective punishments entail situations in which an entire group is punished for a wrongdoing perpetrated only by a subset of its group members [ 9 ]. Support for such treatments has been shown to be shaped by the group’s political organization [ 9 ], collective responsibility [ 10 ], as well as by perceptions of value-violations from the offender group [ 11 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Whereas the above studies establish a link between group entitativity and direct retaliation, none of these previous studies has specifically focused on third-party collective punishment, i.e. the punishment of an entire group for the misdeed of a few group members by an external agent [ 9 , 10 ]. Indeed, goup punishment judgments examined in that earlier work were mostly second-party judgments, such as retaliatory collective punishments by the victim following a rejection [ 24 ] or a provocation [ 26 ], and vicarious punishments (or group-based retaliation)—i.e.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why we sometimes punish the innocent: The role of group entitativity in collective punishment

Pereira

Prooijen

2018

PLoS ONE

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Because punishments are expected to give offenders what they deserve proportionally to the severity of their offenses, the punishment of an entire group because of the misdeed of a few of its members is generally considered as unfair. Group entitativity might increase support for such collective punishment, because members of highly entitative groups are perceived as more similar and interchangeable. We designed three experiments comparing support for third-party collective punishment of low versus high entitative groups. As comparison base-rate, we included conditions in which participants punish an individual wrongdoer (Experiments 1 & 2). Results show that although support for individual punishment is higher than support for collective punishment, this difference was reduced (Experiment 1) or absent (Experiment 2) when the group was highly entitative. Experiment 3 replicated the increasing effect of group entitativity on support for collective punishment. We conclude that group entitativity increases the likelihood of an entire group being treated as a single unit, facilitating collective punishment when a few group members commit an offense.

show abstract

“…All the studies described in this paper have received approval from the Ethical Committee of the Psychology and Educational Sciences Faculty of University of Geneva 4. In these studies, we also assessed the perceived legitimacy of collective punishment (see Berent, et al, 2016aBerent, et al, , 2016bPereira, et al, 2015). As in past studies (Berent et al, 2016a(Berent et al, , 2016b and for reasons we still ignore, the pattern of findings for measures of perceived legitimacy were somewhat inconsistent across the studies presented here.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 79%

Collective Apologies Moderate the Effects of Justice Concerns on Support for Collective Punishment

2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Following an offense, various justice concerns arise, and people might support the punishment of the offender’s entire group to restore a sense of justice (even if the other group members are innocent). We hypothesized that support for collective punishment might increase along one’s justice concerns, and that such effect can be hindered by the group’s collective apologies. In three studies, third-party observers were presented with various cases of aggression and we measured (Study 1) or manipulated (Studies 2 and 3) their justice concerns. In all studies, the presence (vs. absence) of collective apologies was additionally manipulated. The results confirmed our hypothesis thereby increasing our knowledge of both the determinants of collective punishment and the potential effects of collective apologies.

show abstract

Collective punishment depends on collective responsibility and political organization of the target group

Cited by 15 publications

References 47 publications

In the name of democracy: The value of democracy explains leniency towards wrongdoings as a function of group political organization

In the name of democracy: The value of democracy explains leniency towards wrongdoings as a function of group political organization

Why we sometimes punish the innocent: The role of group entitativity in collective punishment

Collective Apologies Moderate the Effects of Justice Concerns on Support for Collective Punishment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About