Culpable control and the psychology of blame.

By M. Alicke. Psychological bulletin, 2000

1,015 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/08d84d5815e98379e6b0e334544b6f14444a01b8

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In Social Psychology

Citations in the corpus

The Pragmatic American: Attributions of Crime and the Hydraulic Relation Hypothesis (2010, background): “” This theorizing led to the hypothesis that people tend to “discount” attributes that are present if they are not consistent with their initial assessment— especially those who attribute cause to dispositional factors (Alicke, 2000; McClure, 1998; Reeder, Vonk, Ronk, Ham, & Lawrence, 2004).”
Taking Teacher Responsibility Into Account(ability): Explicating Its Multiple Components and Theoretical Status (2011, background): “Research suggests that in the case of negative outcomes, deviations from normative expectations lead to higher responsibility ascribed to the actor (Alicke, 2000; Devos-Comby & Devos, 2001).”
To escape blame, don't be a hero—Be a victim (2011, background): “The halo effect suggests that the positive glow from past heroism can generalize to reduce blame in other contexts (Alicke, 2000; Alter, Kernochan, & Darley, 2007), but this may only work when moral transgressions are ambiguous.”
The role of prescriptive norms and knowledge in children's and adults' causal selection. (2016, background): “This pattern of unitary correlations between blame judgments and causal selection in both age groups is largely consistent with the culpable control model (Alicke, 2000): Whether an agent is causally selected depends on whether she is blamed.”
Crime and punishment: distinguishing the roles of causal and intentional analyses in moral judgment. (2008, background): “at the center of inquiry ( Alicke, 2000; Baron & Ritov, 2004; Cushman, Young, & Hauser, 2006; Hauser, 2006; Mikhail, 2000; Pizarro, Uhlmann, & Bloom, 2003).”
Finding fault: Causality and counterfactuals in group attributions (2012, background): “The potential importance of responsibility attributions in general has lead to the development of a substantial literature looking at the psychological processes behind responsibility attributions (Alicke, 2000; Lagnado & Channon, 2008; Shaver, 1985; Weiner, 1995).”
Attributions for serious illness: Are controllability, responsibility and blame different constructs? (2003, background): “Instead, they may focus on the blameworthiness of the agent, going backward through the stages to seek confirmation for their hypotheses and preexisting personal bias (Alicke, 2000).”
Mind Perception Is the Essence of Morality (2012, background): “Second, at the level of the individual, morality concerns character —how we judge not specific acts but the agents who perform them (Alicke, 2000 ; Pizarro & Tannenbaum, 2011 ; Tannenbaum, Uhlmann, & Diermeier, in press ).”
Deconstructing intent to reconstruct morality (2015, background): “And, as several generations of careful research attest, it plays a foundational role in processes of moral judgment [16,18,19 ,20,21 ,22].”
The mind in the machine: Anthropomorphism increases trust in an autonomous vehicle (2014, background): “…capable of controlling their own actions, people judge others to be more responsible for successful actions they perform with conscious awareness, foresight, and planning (Cushman, 2008; Malle & Knobe, 1997) than for actions they perform mindlessly (see Alicke, 2000; Shaver, 1985; Weiner, 1995).”
Judgments of cause and blame: the effects of intentionality and foreseeability. (2008, background): “We will outline two of the most prominent theories, Shaver (1985) and Alicke (2000), with particular emphasis on how they relate to causal judgments.”
At the Heart of Morality Lies Folk Psychology (2009, background): “In our initial study we asked 43 participants to evaluate the blameworthiness of a severe act of aggression (shattering someone’s jaw with a rock) in light of several limiting conditions that were designed to occur at roughly four different stages of action production: distal personal limits (e.g.,…”
Consequences of attributing discrimination to implicit vs. explicit bias (2019, background): “Theoretical and empirical work on moral reasoning argues that in order to be morally responsible for an action, the actor needs to have some level of awareness of and control over their behavior (e.g., Alicke, 2000; Nadler & McDonnell, 2012; Shaver, 1985).”
Assessing tourists' cognitive, emotional and behavioural reactions to an unethical destination incident (2016, background): “the share of guilt that can be attributed to an entity whose action is deemed ethically or socially wrong (Alicke, 2000).”
When Mental States Matter, When They Don't, and What That Means for Morality (2013, background): “A growing body of literature suggests that information about an actor’s moral character, or prior record, may inform assessments of his or her harmful (or helpful) actions as intentional or not (Alicke, 2000, 2008; Knobe, 2005, 2010).”
Learning From Mistakes: How Mistake Tolerance Positively Affects Organizational Learning and Performance (2017, background): “In this type of environment, employees openly blame each other to try to make themselves look better at the expense of others (Alicke, 2000).”