scholarly journals Attitude toward protest uniquely predicts (normative and nonnormative) political action by (advantaged and disadvantaged) group members

2019 ◽  
Vol 82 ◽  
pp. 115-128 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph Sweetman ◽  
Gregory R. Maio ◽  
Russell Spears ◽  
Antony S.R. Manstead ◽  
Andrew G. Livingstone
Keyword(s):  
Political Action ◽  
Disadvantaged Group ◽  
Group Members

scholarly journals Beyond Allyship: Motivations for Advantaged Group Members to Engage in Action for Disadvantaged Groups

2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 291-315 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helena R. M. Radke ◽  
Maja Kutlaca ◽  
Birte Siem ◽  
Stephen C. Wright ◽  
Julia C. Becker
Keyword(s):  
Behavioral Outcomes ◽  
White Americans ◽  
Disadvantaged Group ◽  
Theoretical Contribution ◽  
Moral Beliefs ◽  
Disadvantaged Groups ◽  
The Status ◽  
Global North ◽  
Group Members ◽  
Group B

White Americans who participate in the Black Lives Matter movement, men who attended the Women’s March, and people from the Global North who work to reduce poverty in the Global South—advantaged group members (sometimes referred to as allies) often engage in action for disadvantaged groups. Tensions can arise, however, over the inclusion of advantaged group members in these movements, which we argue can partly be explained by their motivations to participate. We propose that advantaged group members can be motivated to participate in these movements (a) to improve the status of the disadvantaged group, (b) on the condition that the status of their own group is maintained, (c) to meet their own personal needs, and (d) because this behavior aligns with their moral beliefs. We identify potential antecedents and behavioral outcomes associated with these motivations before describing the theoretical contribution our article makes to the psychological literature.

scholarly journals Acting in Solidarity: Cross-Group Contact between Disadvantaged Group Members and Advantaged Group Allies

2016 ◽  
Vol 72 (2) ◽  
pp. 315-334 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Droogendyk ◽  
Stephen C. Wright ◽  
Micah Lubensky ◽  
Winnifred R. Louis
Keyword(s):  
Disadvantaged Group ◽  
Group Members ◽  
Group Contact

Advantaged- and disadvantaged-group members have motivations similar to those of defenders and attackers, but their psychological characteristics are fundamentally different

2019 ◽  
Vol 42 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nurit Shnabel ◽  
Julia Becker
Keyword(s):  
Status Quo ◽  
Psychological Characteristics ◽  
Disadvantaged Group ◽  
Disadvantaged Groups ◽  
The Status ◽  
Group Members

Abstract Modern societies are characterized by group-based hierarchies. Similar to attackers, disadvantaged-group members wish to change the status quo; like defenders, advantaged-group members wish to protect it. However, the psychological arrays that are typical of disadvantaged- and advantaged-group members are opposite to those of attackers and defenders – suggesting that the Attacker-Defender Game does not capture the dynamics between advantaged and disadvantaged groups.

Acting together with the enemy

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Siwar Aslih ◽  
Ruthie Pliskin ◽  
Eric Shuman ◽  
Martijn van Zomeren ◽  
Tamar Saguy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Collective Action ◽  
Joint Action ◽  
Power Relations ◽  
Intergroup Contact ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Disadvantaged Group ◽  
Group Members ◽  
Blacks And Whites ◽  
Perceived Instrumentality ◽  
Key Barrier

The current research examines joint collective action (e.g., between Blacks and Whites) from the perspective of disadvantaged group members, for whom such action reflects a dilemma of whether to “sleep with the enemy.” Integrating insights from research on intergroup contact, helping, and collective action, we suggest that an important part of this dilemma lies in the tension between a key motivation (joint action’s perceived instrumentality) and a key barrier (joint action’s perceived potential to normalize power relations between the groups). We test this idea in three studies using different methods and different intergroup contexts. Studies 1 and 2 showed that manipulated instrumentality increased motivation for joint action, whereas manipulated normalization decreased this motivation. Study 3 showed that manipulated normalization decreased perceptions of instrumentality and thus undermined the motivation for joint action, and this occurred mainly among high identifiers with the disadvantaged group, for whom the dilemma should be most salient. We discuss the implications of our findings for theory and research on collective action and call for future research on joint action.

“Let Them Eat Harmony”

2010 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 76-80 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Dixon ◽  
Linda R. Tropp ◽  
Kevin Durrheim ◽  
Colin Tredoux
Keyword(s):  
Social Change ◽  
Social Inequality ◽  
Prejudice Reduction ◽  
Disadvantaged Group ◽  
Disadvantaged Groups ◽  
Group Members

Research on intergroup prejudice has generally adopted a model of social change that is based around the psychological rehabilitation of members of advantaged groups in order to foster intergroup harmony. Recent studies of prejudice-reduction interventions among members of disadvantaged groups, however, have complicated psychologists’ understanding of the consequences of inducing harmonious relations in historically unequal societies. Interventions encouraging disadvantaged-group members to like advantaged-group members may also prompt the disadvantaged to underestimate the injustice suffered by their group and to become less motivated to support action to challenge social inequality. Thus, psychologists’ tendency to equate intergroup harmony with “good relations” and conflict with “bad relations” is limited.

scholarly journals Individual differences in system justification predict power and morality-related needs in advantaged and disadvantaged groups in response to group disparity

2018 ◽  
Vol 22 (5) ◽  
pp. 746-766 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tabea Hässler ◽  
Nurit Shnabel ◽  
Johannes Ullrich ◽  
Anat Arditti-Vogel ◽  
Ilanit SimanTov-Nachlieli
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Social Inequality ◽  
System Justification ◽  
Disadvantaged Group ◽  
Disadvantaged Groups ◽  
Need For Power ◽  
Group Members

Guided by the needs-based model, we explored how individual differences in system justification predict group members’ needs in response to information about group-based disparities. Across two studies ( N = 819), we found that among disadvantaged-group members (LGBTIQ* individuals/women) system justification was negatively related to need for power. Among advantaged-group members ([cis-]heterosexuals/men), system justification was negatively related to motivation to restore their ingroup’s moral essence (i.e., moral shame and wish that the ingroup would act more morally) but positively related to motivation to restore their ingroup’s moral image (i.e., need for positive moral image and expectation that the outgroup should acknowledge the ingroup’s morality). These results theoretically extend the needs-based model by offering a more nuanced picture of morality-related needs. Further, they underline the importance of considering individual differences in system justification for understanding advantaged- and disadvantaged-group members’ responses to social inequality.

The Oppression of Nonhuman Life

2018 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 195-214
Author(s):  
Lisa Kretz ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Ethics ◽  
Political Action ◽  
Environmental Philosophy ◽  
Secondary Literature ◽  
Theoretical Perspectives ◽  
Group Members

Karen Warren’s work has helped to transform the landscape of environmental philosophy, contributing theoretical grounding for Western ecofeminism and opening the range of theoretical perspectives one can adopt when doing Western environmental ethics. Although her work is laudable, there are substantive worries about how potential subjects of oppression are characterized in her later work. Warren’s work and relevant secondary literature can be used as a foil to illuminate inadequate justification for the failure to include all living entities as potential subjects of the harm of oppression. The failure to provide conceptual room to include all entities that can rightfully be the potential subjects of oppression limits our understanding of oppression and the multiple ways in which it functions. Additionally, failure to attend to all potential subjects of oppression limits practical opportunities for anti-oppressive solidarity in political action. If oppression is correctly described as the harm of particular group members by others, and the class of living entities can be subjected to harm, then nonhuman living entities can potentially be subjects of oppression. The aim here is to provide conceptual support for the possibility that nonhuman life can be oppressed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document