scholarly journals Disadvantaged group members’ evaluations and support for allies: Investigating the role of communication style and group membership

2021 ◽  
pp. 136843022110109
Author(s):  
Helena R. M. Radke ◽  
Maja Kutlaca ◽  
Julia C. Becker
Keyword(s):  
Collective Action ◽  
Group Membership ◽  
Black Americans ◽  
Communication Style ◽  
Disadvantaged Group ◽  
Group Members

Limited research has examined disadvantaged group members’ evaluations and support for allies who engage in collective action on their behalf. Across two studies (Study 1 N = 264 women; Study 2 N = 347 Black Americans) we manipulated an ally’s communication style and group membership to investigate whether these factors play a role in how allies are perceived and received. We found that participants evaluated allies less positively and were less willing to support them when they communicated their support in a dominant compared to a neutral way. Heightened perceptions that the ally was trying to take over the movement and make themselves the center of attention explained these results. However, we found no effect of whether the ally belonged to another disadvantaged group or not. Our findings contribute to the growing literature which seeks to understand the complexities associated with involving allies in collective action.

scholarly journals A Darker Side of Hope: Harmony-Focused Hope Decreases Collective Action Intentions Among the Disadvantaged

2018 ◽  
Vol 45 (2) ◽  
pp. 209-223 ◽  
Author(s):  
Siwar Hasan-Aslih ◽  
Ruthie Pliskin ◽  
Martijn van Zomeren ◽  
Eran Halperin ◽  
Tamar Saguy
Keyword(s):  
Social Change ◽  
Collective Action ◽  
Positive Emotion ◽  
Motivation To Change ◽  
Disadvantaged Group ◽  
Intergroup Interactions ◽  
Motivation For Change ◽  
Group Members ◽  
Practical Implications

Hope is viewed as a positive emotion associated with the motivation to change existing conditions. As such, it is highly relevant for social change, particularly when considering disadvantaged groups. We propose that, in the context of unequal intergroup relations, hope may actually undermine motivation for change among disadvantaged group members. Specifically, we distinguish between hope targeted at harmony with the outgroup and hope targeted at social equality between groups. Drawing on insights regarding the consequences of positive intergroup interactions, we predict that hope for harmony with the outgroup can undermine the constructive tension that motivates the disadvantaged toward equality. Across four studies, involving different intergroup contexts, hope for harmony was negatively associated with disadvantaged group members’ motivation for collective action. We further found that high identifiers from the disadvantaged group were immune to this effect. We discuss theoretical and practical implications for the role of hope in social change.

scholarly journals Whites for racial justice: How contact with Black Americans predicts support for collective action among White Americans

2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (6) ◽  
pp. 893-912 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hema Preya Selvanathan ◽  
Pirathat Techakesari ◽  
Linda R. Tropp ◽  
Fiona Kate Barlow
Keyword(s):  
Social Change ◽  
Collective Action ◽  
Intergroup Contact ◽  
Black Americans ◽  
White Americans ◽  
Racial Justice ◽  
Group Efficacy ◽  
Total N ◽  
Group Members ◽  
White Guilt

Advantaged group members have an important role to play in creating social change, and intergroup contact has tremendous implications in shaping intergroup relations. However, little research has examined how intergroup contact predicts advantaged group members’ inclinations toward collective action to support the interests of disadvantaged groups. The present research investigates how contact with Black Americans shapes White Americans’ willingness to engage in collective action for racial justice and support for the Black Lives Matter movement. Three studies of White Americans (total N = 821) consistently reveal that positive contact with Black Americans predicts greater support for collective action through a sequential process of fostering greater feelings of empathy for Black Americans and anger over injustice. These findings hold even when taking into account other relevant psychological factors (i.e., White guilt and identification, negative contact, group efficacy, and moral convictions). The present research contributes to our understanding of how advantaged group members come to engage in social change efforts.

scholarly journals Intergroup Discrimination in Cooperation Among Moral and Non-Moral Groups

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 28-33
Author(s):  
Hirotaka Imada ◽  
Daniel Codd ◽  
Daqing Liu
Keyword(s):  
Group Membership ◽  
Moral Values ◽  
Group Cooperation ◽  
Group Members ◽  
Group Member

In-group favouritism is ubiquitous and previous studies have consistently found that individuals cooperate more with in-group members than out-group members in diverse contexts. Yet, there has not been much research on the role of the nature of groups in intergroup cooperation. A recent study found stronger levels of in-group favouritism amongst groups formed on the basis of shared moral values. However, it remained unclear whether the increased favouritism was caused by a greater tendency to act favourably towards the in-group or derogatorily towards the out-group. The present study thus investigated intergroup cooperation among morality-based and non-morality-based groups and examined the levels of cooperation with an in-group member and an out-group member as compared to a person whose group membership was unknown. Regardless of how groups were formed, in-group favouritism was present, while out-group derogation was absent. Furthermore, we found that the shared morality promoted in-group cooperation indirectly via low perceived out-group warmth. Our study provides further evidence that in-group favouring behaviour does not include derogating out-groups and points to the importance of further investigation into the role of the shared morality in intergroup cooperation.

scholarly journals Protesting to protect “us” and/or “them”? Explaining why members of third groups are willing to engage in collective action

2018 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 140-160 ◽  
Author(s):  
Liga Klavina ◽  
Martijn van Zomeren
Keyword(s):  
Social Psychology ◽  
Collective Action ◽  
Group Identification ◽  
Black Americans ◽  
Police Brutality ◽  
Gas Extraction ◽  
Latino Americans ◽  
Group Members

In three studies we test whether three key predictors of collective action (i.e., group identification, anger, and efficacy) also predict whether and how members of third groups are willing to undertake collective action. Little is known about this, particularly about whether and how third-group members may engage in collective action to protect their own group and/or to protect an outgroup in need. In three studies that employed different three-group contexts, we found that the three predictors contributed to third-group members’ collective action intentions aimed at protecting the ingroup as well as those aimed at protecting the outgroup. Study 1 found this among Latvians ( N = 89) in response to the Russian annexation of Ukrainian territory; Study 2 found this among residents of a Dutch village ( N = 98) located nearby a gas-extraction-related earthquake region, in response to authorities’ inadequate protection of the residents of that region; and Study 3 found this among Latino Americans ( N = 278) in response to police brutality against Black Americans. Moving beyond replication and application of previous work, our set of studies show first evidence for ingroup and outgroup protection as motives of third-group members’ collective action. We discuss the implications of our findings for the broader social psychology of collective action literature.

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.

scholarly journals Ethnic dissimilarity predicts belonging motive frustration and reduced organizational attachment

2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 116-138
Author(s):  
Kawon Kim ◽  
Margaret E. Ormiston ◽  
Matthew J. Easterbrook ◽  
Vivian L. Vignoles
Keyword(s):  
Group Membership ◽  
Empirical Studies ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Naturalistic Study ◽  
Negative Consequences ◽  
Student Groups ◽  
Organizational Attachment ◽  
Psychological Mechanisms ◽  
Group Members

Some empirical studies show negative consequences of being demographically different from one’s group, but the underlying psychological mechanisms are not well understood. To address this gap, we investigated the role of the belonging and distinctiveness motives in individuals’ experiences of being ethnically dissimilar from their group. We propose that ethnic dissimilarity satisfies group members’ need for distinctiveness whereas it frustrates members’ need for belonging, and this frustration reduces their organizational attachment. An experimental study showed that ethnic dissimilarity led to heightened arousal of the belonging motive, indicating that this motive was frustrated. In a naturalistic study of real-life student groups, ethnic dissimilarity was associated with frustrated belonging, which in turn was associated with reduced organizational attachment. This paper contributes to the literature on demographic dissimilarity in groups by closely examining the effect of demographic dissimilarity on group members’ fundamental motives and reactions to group membership.

scholarly journals When we want them to fear us: The motivation to influence outgroup emotions in collective action

2018 ◽  
Vol 22 (5) ◽  
pp. 724-745 ◽  
Author(s):  
Siwar Hasan-Aslih ◽  
Liat Netzer ◽  
Martijn van Zomeren ◽  
Tamar Saguy ◽  
Maya Tamir ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Social Change ◽  
Collective Action ◽  
Causal Effect ◽  
Prior Work ◽  
Disadvantaged Group ◽  
Nonviolent Action ◽  
Group Members ◽  
Violent Action ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Action Tendencies

Prior work has shown that the experience of group-based emotions can motivate disadvantaged group members to engage in collective action. In the current research, we tested whether such action can also be driven by the motivation to induce certain emotions among the outgroup to the extent that disadvantaged group members believe this would help them attain their social change goals. We tested this hypothesis in three studies (two correlational and one experimental) within the context of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Study 1 showed that individuals’ motivation to induce outgroup regret was associated with nonviolent collective action tendencies, whereas the motivation to induce outgroup fear was related to violent action. Study 2 moved beyond Study 1 by assessing corrective and punitive goals of social change. We found that preferences for inducing outgroup regret mediated the relationship between endorsement of corrective goals and nonviolent action tendencies, whereas preferences for outgroup fear mediated the relationship between punitive goals and violent action. Study 3 provided experimental support for the causal effect of goals on emotion motivations and collective action tendencies. Together, our findings are in line with the notion of instrumental emotion regulation as applied to collective action.

scholarly journals Determining our Destiny: Do Restrictions to Collective Autonomy Fuel Collective Action?

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frank Kachanoff ◽  
Nour Kteily ◽  
Thomas Khullar ◽  
Hyun Joon Park ◽  
Donald Taylor
Keyword(s):  
Collective Action ◽  
Group Identification ◽  
Black Americans ◽  
System Justification ◽  
White Americans ◽  
Group Agency ◽  
Dominant Position ◽  
The Social ◽  
Power Group ◽  
Group Members

Groups experience collective autonomy restriction whenever they perceive that other groups attempt to limit the freedom of their group to determine and express its own identity. We argue that collective autonomy restriction motivates groups (both structurally advantaged and disadvantaged) to improve their power position within the social hierarchy. Four studies spanning real-world (Studies 1 and 2) and lab-based (Studies 3 and 4) intergroup contexts supported these ideas. In Study 1 (N=311), Black Americans’ (a relatively disadvantaged group) experience of collective autonomy restriction was associated with greater support for collective action, and less system justification. In Study 2, we replicated these findings with another sample of Black Americans (N=292). We also found that collective autonomy restriction was positively associated with White Americans’ (a relatively advantaged group, N=294) support for collective action and ideologies that bolster White’s dominant position. In Study 3 (N=387, 97 groups), groups that were susceptible to being controlled by a high-power group (i.e., were of low structural power) desired group power more when their collective autonomy was restricted (versus supported). In Study 4 (N=803, 257 groups) experiencing collective autonomy restriction (versus support) increased low-power group members’ support of collective action, decreased system justification, and evoked hostile emotions, both when groups were and were not materially exploited (by being tasked with more than their fair share of work). Across studies, we differentiate collective autonomy restriction from structural group power, other forms of injustice, group agency, and group identification. These findings indicate that collective autonomy restriction uniquely motivates collective behavior.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document