Why do we punish groups? High entitativity promotes moral suspicion

People typically take a moral deservingness perspective when deciding on appropriate punishment for intentional wrongdoings committed by individuals. Considerably less is known about how people reason about wrongdoings committed by groups, even though there are fundamental differences in how people perceive individuals versus groups. The present research examined perceived entitativity, the degree to which a group is perceived to be a unified, single agent, as a potential determinant of moral reasoning about transgressions committed by groups. We found that participants recommended more severe punishments for high entitativity (vs. low entitativity) perpetrator groups, particularly in the presence of morally mitigating circumstances that typically lessen punitiveness. This effect was mediated by perceptions of greater moral accountability in high-entitativity groups. Thus, justice is not equal for all groups. Implications for retributive justice and the criminal justice system are discussed.

► People consider moral deservingness when punishing individuals for wrongdoings. ► Less is known about how people reason about transgressions committed by groups. ► We examined entitativity as a determinant of moral reasoning about group transgressions. ► High-entitativity groups were punished more harshly and did not benefit from mitigating circumstances. ► Thus, justice is not equal for all groups.