What's so crummy 'bout peace, love, and understanding?

2012 ◽  
Vol 35 (6) ◽  
pp. 434-435 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nick Haslam
Keyword(s):  
Collective Action ◽  
Prejudice Reduction ◽  
Target Article ◽  
Common Identity ◽  
Standard Contact

AbstractThe target article challenges standard approaches to prejudice reduction, warning that they may inure people to inequality and deflect them from seeking collective solutions to it. I argue that the collective action approach has its own risks and limitations and that standard contact and common identity approaches may complement rather than work against it.

From extreme emotions to extreme actions: Explaining non-normative collective action and reconciliation

2012 ◽  
Vol 35 (6) ◽  
pp. 432-433 ◽  
Author(s):  
Allard R. Feddes ◽  
Liesbeth Mann ◽  
Bertjan Doosje
Keyword(s):  
Collective Action ◽  
Intergroup Contact ◽  
Prejudice Reduction ◽  
Positive Effects ◽  
Complementary Approach ◽  
Target Article

AbstractA key argument of Dixon et al. in the target article is that prejudice reduction through intergroup contact and collective action work in opposite ways. We argue for a complementary approach focusing on extreme emotions to understand why people turn to non-normative collective action and to understand when and under what conditions extreme emotions may influence positive effects of contact on reconciliation.

Substantive collectivism: collectivism in practice

2019 ◽  
pp. 3-22
Author(s):  
Paul Spicker
Keyword(s):  
Collective Action ◽  
Social Groups ◽  
Social Institutions ◽  
Common Identity ◽  
Informal Groups

Substantive collectivism is the idea that we live, not as 'individuals', but as a member of social groups, and that many of our actions are done together with others in organisations and social institutions, such as schools and businesses. Social groups are distinguished by a common identity, a network of relationships between people and a capacity for collective action. The relationships are clearest in discussions of formal organisations, but the same principles extend to informal groups, such as families, neighbourhoods and communities.

Beyond prejudice: Relational inequality, collective action, and social change revisited

2012 ◽  
Vol 35 (6) ◽  
pp. 451-466 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Dixon ◽  
Mark Levine ◽  
Steve Reicher ◽  
Kevin Durrheim
Keyword(s):  
Social Change ◽  
Collective Action ◽  
Intergroup Relations ◽  
Prejudice Reduction ◽  
Dominant Group ◽  
Negative Attitudes ◽  
Main Target ◽  
Subordinate Group ◽  
Group Members ◽  
Intergroup Inequality

AbstractThis response clarifies, qualifies, and develops our critique of the limits of intergroup liking as a means of challenging intergroup inequality. It does not dispute that dominant groups may espouse negative attitudes towards subordinate groups. Nor does it dispute that prejudice reduction can be an effective way of tackling resulting forms of intergroup hostility. What it does dispute is the assumption that getting dominant group members and subordinate group members to like each other more is the best way of improving intergroup relations that are characterized by relatively stable, institutionally embedded, relations of inequality. In other words, the main target of our critique is the model of change that underlies prejudice reduction interventions and the mainstream concept of “prejudice” on which they are based.

scholarly journals Beyond prejudice: Are negative evaluations the problem and is getting us to like one another more the solution?

2012 ◽  
Vol 35 (6) ◽  
pp. 411-425 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Dixon ◽  
Mark Levine ◽  
Steve Reicher ◽  
Kevin Durrheim
Keyword(s):  
Collective Action ◽  
Social Inequalities ◽  
Prejudice Reduction ◽  
The Political ◽  
Intergroup Emotions ◽  
Action Model ◽  
History Of ◽  
The One ◽  
Ironic Effects

AbstractFor most of the history of prejudice research, negativity has been treated as its emotional and cognitive signature, a conception that continues to dominate work on the topic. By this definition, prejudice occurs when we dislike or derogate members of other groups. Recent research, however, has highlighted the need for a more nuanced and “inclusive” (Eagly 2004) perspective on the role of intergroup emotions and beliefs in sustaining discrimination. On the one hand, several independent lines of research have shown that unequal intergroup relations are often marked by attitudinal complexity, with positive responses such as affection and admiration mingling with negative responses such as contempt and resentment. Simple antipathy is the exception rather than the rule. On the other hand, there is mounting evidence that nurturing bonds of affection between the advantaged and the disadvantaged sometimes entrenches rather than disrupts wider patterns of discrimination. Notably, prejudice reduction interventions may have ironic effects on the political attitudes of the historically disadvantaged, decreasing their perceptions of injustice and willingness to engage in collective action to transform social inequalities.These developments raise a number of important questions. Has the time come to challenge the assumption that negative evaluations are inevitably the cognitive and affective hallmarks of discrimination? Is the orthodox concept of prejudice in danger of side-tracking, if not obstructing, progress towards social justice in a fuller sense? What are the prospects for reconciling a prejudice reduction model of change, designed to get people to like one another more, with a collective action model of change, designed to ignite struggles to achieve intergroup equality?

The complexity of human sharing

2004 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 567-568 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric Alden Smith
Keyword(s):  
Collective Action ◽  
Theoretical Basis ◽  
Costly Signaling ◽  
Excellent Review ◽  
Public Displays ◽  
Target Article

Although an excellent review, the target article displays a bias in favor of reciprocity-based explanations and against alternatives. Tolerated scrounging is more subtle and pervasive than portrayed here. Costly signaling need not be limited to public displays and generalized sharing. The theoretical basis for extensive sharing and other forms of collective action remains unresolved, and standard reciprocity-based explanations are insufficient.

scholarly journals Prejudice reduction, collective action, and then what?

2012 ◽  
Vol 35 (6) ◽  
pp. 425-426 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dominic Abrams ◽  
Milica Vasiljevic ◽  
Hazel M. Wardrop
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Collective Action ◽  
Intergroup Relations ◽  
Prejudice Reduction ◽  
Levels Of Analysis ◽  
Potential Conflict ◽  
Conflict Escalation ◽  
Multiple Levels

AbstractDespite downsides, it must, on balance, be good to reduce prejudice. Despite upsides, collective action can also have destructive outcomes. Improving intergroup relations requires multiple levels of analysis involving a broader approach to prejudice reduction, awareness of potential conflict escalation, development of intergroup understanding, and promotion of a wider human rights perspective.

Echoing the call to move “beyond prejudice” in search of intergroup equality

2012 ◽  
Vol 35 (6) ◽  
pp. 450-451
Author(s):  
Stephen C. Wright ◽  
Lisa M. Bitacola
Keyword(s):  
Collective Action ◽  
Intergroup Relations ◽  
Group Interaction ◽  
Prejudice Reduction ◽  
Interpersonal Processes ◽  
Interpersonal Dynamics ◽  
Psychological Constructs

AbstractWe also critique the myopic focus on prejudice reduction, but we do not support the call for a reconceptualization of prejudice. Redefining key psychological constructs is unproductive. Also, we point to interpersonal dynamics in cross-group interaction as a key mechanism in the prejudice reduction/collective action paradox and point to solutions involving intrapersonal/interpersonal processes, as well as broader structural intergroup relations.

scholarly journals Prejudice Reduction and Collective Action: A Conflict or Confluence of Interests?

2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 291-309 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucas B. Mazur
Keyword(s):  
Collective Action ◽  
Psychological Research ◽  
Prejudice Reduction ◽  
Negative Consequences ◽  
Social Psychological ◽  
Current Thinking ◽  
Growing Body ◽  
Reduction Strategies ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
Social Psychological Research

There is a growing body of research findings suggesting that prejudice reduction strategies can have unintended negative consequences, particularly by helping to stabilize systems of inequality. In light of these findings, a handful of scholars have suggested that the field be guided less by the prejudice reduction tradition, so as to focus more on collective action. While agreeing with the recent critiques of prejudice reduction, I argue that in more robustly embracing a collective action approach we should be careful not to abandon the notion of perceptualism that colored original thinking on prejudice reduction, lest we artificially narrow the scope of social psychological research and unintentionally ignore communities that do not fit well within current thinking in the collective action tradition.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document