People as intuitive prosecutors: The impact of social-control goals on attributions of responsibility

Tetlock, Philip E.; Visser, Penny S.; Singh, Ramadhar; Polifroni, Mark; Scott, Amanda L.; Elson, Sara Beth; Mazzocco, Philip J.; Rescober, Phillip

doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2006.02.009

Cited by 122 publications

(175 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

158

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As is consistent with the harm principle and psychological research on blaming (Tetlock 2002;Tetlock et al 2007;Tetlock, Self, and Singh 2010), we predicted that few observers will deem it justifiable to take directly punitive measures against people on the sole basis of attitudes that have yet to translate into harmful acts and that people may not even be aware of possessing. However, observers will be more willing to support indirectly punitive measures that impose special compliance burdens on those who could have taken measures to prevent unconscious biases from manifesting and harming others.…”

Section: An Experimental Inquiry Into Support For Unconscious-bias Dementioning

confidence: 56%

“…People need socially acceptable rationales for unfamiliar and potentially controversial decisions (Tetlock et al 2007;Tetlock, Self, and Singh 2010), and, depending on the subculture, these rationales are likely to include ontological justifications (claims about the pervasiveness of undesirable unconscious attitudes), epistemic justifications (claims about the objectivity of the research community), and ethical justifications (claims about the relative dangers of false-positive versus false-negative classifications of people). It follows that the more one's ideological outlook predisposes one to see false-positive attributions as more serious than false-negative attributions, the more it predisposes one to see undesirable unconscious attitudes as pervasive; the more it predisposes one to be suspicious of the scientists, the more that outlook should predict opposition to societal applications.…”

Section: An Experimental Inquiry Into Support For Unconscious-bias Dementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Detecting and Punishing Unconscious Bias

Mitchell¹,

Anastasopoulos²

2013

The Journal of Legal Studies

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present experimental results demonstrating how ideology shapes evaluations of technology aimed at detecting unconscious biases: (1) liberals supported use of the technology to detect unconscious racism but not unconscious anti-Americanism, whereas conservatives showed the reverse pattern, (2) liberals and conservatives opposed punishing individuals for unconscious bias but supported punishing organizations failing to use the technology to root out, respectively, racism or anti-Americanism, (3) concerns about researcher bias and false accusations mediated the effects of ideology on support for the technology, and (4) participants taking strong initial stands were likelier than moderates to reconsider their positions. Our findings demonstrate that there is substantial concern about penalizing unconscious bias at the individual level and that it will be difficult to generate broad support for regulation of unconscious bias at even the organizational level unless the technology is a reliable detector of unconscious biases that lead to frequent or serious antisocial behaviors. Disciplines Management Sciences and Quantitative MethodsThis journal article is available at ScholarlyCommons: https://repository.upenn.edu/mgmt_papers/233 (1) liberals supported use of the technology to detect unconscious racism but not unconscious anti-Americanism, whereas conservatives showed the reverse pattern, (2) liberals and conservatives opposed punishing individuals for unconscious bias but supported punishing organizations failing to use the technology to root out, respectively, racism or anti-Americanism, (3) concerns about researcher bias and false accusations mediated the effects of ideology on support for the technology, and (4) participants taking strong initial stands were likelier than moderates to reconsider their positions. Our findings demonstrate that there is substantial concern about penalizing unconscious bias at the individual level and that it will be difficult to generate broad support for regulation of unconscious bias at even the organizational level unless the technology is a reliable detector of unconscious biases that lead to frequent or serious antisocial behaviors.

show abstract

Section: An Experimental Inquiry Into Support For Unconscious-bias Dementioning

confidence: 56%

Section: An Experimental Inquiry Into Support For Unconscious-bias Dementioning

confidence: 99%

Detecting and Punishing Unconscious Bias

Mitchell¹,

Anastasopoulos²

2013

The Journal of Legal Studies

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When people believe the societal order is under threat, they adopt a prosecutorial mindset marked by moral outrage, negative character attributions, and punishment goals (Rucker, Polifroni, Tetlock, & Scott, 2004;Tetlock, 2002;Tetlock et al, 2007). Supporting the idea that people target agentic women with a prosecutorial mindset, greater moral outrage is expressed toward power-seeking women than power-seeking men (Okimoto & Brescoll, 2010), and social punishments for agentic behavior are exacerbated when perceivers believe the system is under threat (Rudman, Moss-Racusin, Phelan, & Nauts, 2012).…”

Section: Outcomes Of Motivated Reasoningmentioning

confidence: 99%

A pawn in someone else's game?: The cognitive, motivational, and paradigmatic barriers to women's excelling in negotiation

Kennedy

Kray

2015

Research in Organizational Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Within a framework of inequality the existence of conflict is denied and the means to engage openly in conflict are excluded. -Jean Baker Miller, M. D. The New Psychology of WomenWomen in organizations are succeeding to a lesser degree than men. Women still hold only 5% of CEO positions (Catalyst, 2015), 19% of Board Directorships (Catalyst, 2015 and are estimated to earn only $0.82 for every dollar paid to men (Hegewisch, Ellis, & Hartmann, 2015). When women are under-represented in high status positions, it becomes more difficult for other women to succeed in the organization (Ibarra, 1992(Ibarra, , 1993Kanter, 1977). The female gender group is seen more negatively in firms with fewer senior women (Ely, 1994) and women's skills go unrecognized (Joshi, 2014) 1 .Despite similar career aspirations, the trajectories of high-achieving men and women in MBA programs vary in important ways. A recent survey of Harvard Business School alumni showed that women were less likely than men to hold senior management positions, less likely to Women's relatively worse performance in negotiation is often cited as an explanation for gender differences in advancement and pay within organizations. We review key findings from the past twenty years of research on gender differences in negotiation. Women do underperform relative to men in negotiation, but only under limited circumstances, which means the performance gap is unlikely due to lesser skills on their part. The barriers between women and negotiation excellence are of three types: cognitive, motivational, and paradigmatic. Cognitive barriers stem from negative stereotypes about women's negotiating abilities. Motivational barriers stem from desire to prevent women negotiators from excelling in a masculine domain. Paradigmatic barriers stem from how negotiation is currently studied. We call for greater attention to motivational barriers and for changes to the negotiation paradigm. Women negotiators are not incompetent, and training them to negotiate more like men is not obviously the solution. In fact, women have greater concern for others than men do, and their cooperativeness elevates collective intelligence and enables ethical behavior. Under a new paradigm of negotiation, the value of these strengths could become more readily apparent. In particular, we advocate for greater attention to long-term relationships, subjective value, and relational capital, all of which may have important economic implications in real world negotiations. ß

show abstract

“…Moral anger has been associated not just with attributions of harm, but also with the concept of blame or responsibility (Alicke, 2000;Goldberg, Lerner & Tetlock, 1999;Tetlock et al, 2007). This can itself be influenced by mitigating considerations within a given situation, such as whether actions are intentional (Schlenker, 1997;Weiner, 1995).…”

Section: Intentionalitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Moral anger, but not moral disgust, responds to intentionality.

Russell¹,

Giner‐Sorolla²

2011

Emotion

157

153

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We propose that, when people judge moral situations, anger responds to the contextual cues of harm and intentionality. On the other hand, disgust responds uniquely to whether or not a bodily norm violation has occurred; its apparent response to harm and intent is entirely explained by the coactivation of anger. We manipulated intent, harm, and bodily norm violation (eating human flesh) within a vignette describing a scientific experiment. Participants then rated their anger, disgust, and moral judgment, as well as various appraisals. Anger responded independently of disgust to harm and intentionality, whereas disgust responded independently of anger only to whether or not the act violated the bodily norm of cannibalism. Theoretically relevant appraisals accounted for the effects of harm and intent on anger; however, appraisals of abnormality did not fully account for the effects of the manipulations on disgust. Our results show that anger and disgust are separately elicited by different cues in a moral situation.

show abstract

People as intuitive prosecutors: The impact of social-control goals on attributions of responsibility

Cited by 122 publications

References 22 publications

Detecting and Punishing Unconscious Bias

Detecting and Punishing Unconscious Bias

A pawn in someone else's game?: The cognitive, motivational, and paradigmatic barriers to women's excelling in negotiation

Moral anger, but not moral disgust, responds to intentionality.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About