Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lickel, B.
Right arrow Articles by Hamilton, D. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Lickel, B.
Right arrow Articles by Hamilton, D. L.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

A Case of Collective Responsibility: Who Else Was to Blame for the Columbine High School Shootings?

Brian Lickel

University of Southern California

Toni Schmader

The University of Arizona

David L. Hamilton

University of California, Santa Barbara

Two studies examined perceptions of collective responsibility for the April 20, 1999, shootings at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado. Collective responsibility refers to the perception that others, besides the wrongdoers themselves, are responsible for the event. In Study 1, the authors assessed perceptions of the shooters’ parents and their peer group (the Trenchcoat Mafia), whereas Study 2 tested perceptions of collective responsibility across a range of groups. In both studies, perceptions of a target group’s entitativity predicted judgments of collective responsibility. This relationship was mediated by two situational construals that justify applying collective responsibility: responsibility by commission (encouraging or facilitating the event) and responsibility by omission (failing to prevent the event). Study 2 also determined that perceptions of authority predicted judgments of collective responsibility for the Columbine shootings and was mediated by inferences of omission. Future directions in collective responsibility research are discussed.

Key Words: collective responsibility • responsibility • entitativity • blame • interdependence • attribution

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 29, No. 2, 194-204 (2003)
DOI: 10.1177/0146167202239045
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Pers Soc Psychol BullHome page
M. D. Henderson
Psychological Distance and Group Judgments: The Effect of Physical Distance on Beliefs about Common Goals
Pers Soc Psychol Bull, October 1, 2009; 35(10): 1330 - 1341.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Pers Soc Psychol BullHome page
D. M. Stenstrom, B. Lickel, T. F. Denson, and N. Miller
The Roles of Ingroup Identification and Outgroup Entitativity in Intergroup Retribution
Pers Soc Psychol Bull, November 1, 2008; 34(11): 1570 - 1582.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Psychology Developing SocietiesHome page
R. B. Ruback and P. Singh
Ingroup Bias, Intergroup Contact and the Attribution of Blame for Riots
Psychology Developing Societies, December 1, 2007; 19(2): 249 - 265.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Group Processes Intergroup RelationsHome page
J. M. Falomir-Pichastor, C. Staerkle, M.-A. Depuiset, and F. Butera
Perceived Legitimacy of Collective Punishment as a Function of Democratic versus Non-Democratic Group Structure
Group Processes Intergroup Relations, October 1, 2007; 10(4): 565 - 579.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Pers Soc Psychol BullHome page
R. J. Rydell, K. Hugenberg, D. Ray, and D. M. Mackie
Implicit Theories About Groups and Stereotyping: The Role of Group Entitativity
Pers Soc Psychol Bull, April 1, 2007; 33(4): 549 - 558.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Pers Soc Psychol BullHome page
J. C. Magee and L. Z. Tiedens
Emotional Ties That Bind: The Roles of Valence and Consistency of Group Emotion in Inferences of Cohesiveness and Common Fate
Pers Soc Psychol Bull, December 1, 2006; 32(12): 1703 - 1715.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Pers Soc Psychol RevHome page
B. Lickel, N. Miller, D. M. Stenstrom, T. F. Denson, and T. Schmader
Vicarious Retribution: The Role of Collective Blame in Intergroup Aggression
Personality and Social Psychology Review, November 1, 2006; 10(4): 372 - 390.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Group Processes Intergroup RelationsHome page
S. R. Levy, C.-y. Chiu, and Y.-y. Hong
Lay Theories and Intergroup Relations
Group Processes Intergroup Relations, January 1, 2006; 9(1): 5 - 24.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Group Processes Intergroup RelationsHome page
T. F. Denson, B. Lickel, M. Curtis, D. M. Stenstrom, and D. R. Ames
The Roles of Entitativity and Essentiality in Judgments of Collective Responsibility
Group Processes Intergroup Relations, January 1, 2006; 9(1): 43 - 61.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Group Processes Intergroup RelationsHome page
B. Lickel, T. Schmader, M. Curtis, M. Scarnier, and D. R. Ames
Vicarious Shame and Guilt
Group Processes Intergroup Relations, April 1, 2005; 8(2): 145 - 157.
[Abstract] [PDF]