Abstract
It is often unclear how to apportion praise after a group's success and blame after a group's failure. Should all members share responsibility or only a select few? In this article, we examine how people do solve this apportionment problem and how they should solve this problem. Seven empirical studies (N = 1,052) reveal that people frequently rely on a strategy of praise-many, blame-fewer, a tendency found across several different domains: high-profile sports championships, hierarchical business decisions, and first- and third-person judgments of impromptu work teams. Agent-based models test the success of different apportionment strategies under different conditions. These models suggest that in many circumstances it is adaptive to praise broadly after success and to blame more narrowly after failure-even with only minimal insight into individual skill-although effects vary depending on the motivation of group members to improve after being blamed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
