How collective punishment harm intergroup relations through ingroup homogeneity, perceived fairness, and counter‐collective action: A registered report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In collective punishment, a group as a whole receives negative consequences because of the actions of a few. We argue that collective punishments lead to ingroup cohesiveness and adverse intergroup relations by instigating a punishment‐revenge cycle. In four experimental studies conducted in Turkey and Germany ( N = 2059), we demonstrated that collective punishment increased ingroup homogeneity, negative outgroup attitudes, and counter‐collective action intention, while it decreased perceived outgroup fairness. However, the impact on perceived fairness and negative outgroup attitudes was consistent regardless of whether all group members or only perpetrators were punished. This reveals that punishment itself influences the perception towards the punishing outgroup, regardless of the legitimacy and the target of punishment. Overall, willingness for retaliation was boosted by collective punishment; therefore, collective punishment not only fails to silence conflicts but, on the contrary, exacerbates them by fueling the urge for revenge.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".