scholarly journals Standing up for Whom? Targets’ Different Goals in the Confrontation of Discrimination

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anja Katrin Munder ◽  
Julia C. Becker ◽  
Oliver Christ
Keyword(s):  
Collective Action ◽  
Group Identification ◽  
Prejudice Reduction ◽  
Psychological Processes ◽  
Standing Up ◽  
Group Members ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Individual

We challenge the common interpretation of targets’ immediate confrontation in reaction todiscrimination as self-serving behavior and propose different underlying motivations for this phenomenon. In five online scenario studies (Noverall = 1,447), we demonstrate across different samples and contexts that targets indicate a distinct pursuit of the following self-reported confrontation goals: individual-benefit (e.g., perpetrator apologizes); group-benefit (e.g., prejudice reduction); and distancing (e.g., demonstrating that one is different from typical group members). Furthermore, meaningful associations of the pursuits of individual-benefitting goals and group- benefitting goals with group identification, disidentification, and further collective action intentions indicate that they represent different confrontation motivations: Individual-benefitting confrontation serves to cope with the individual mistreatment of discrimination, whereas group- benefitting confrontation represents a form of collective action. Distancing goals were associated with disidentification and—unexpectedly—group identification. Our results show that the phenomenon of confrontation in reaction to discrimination can be the result of different underlying psychological processes.

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 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.

Effect of Word-List Consistency on the Correlation between Group Memory and Group Polarization

2013 ◽  
Vol 112 (2) ◽  
pp. 375-389 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yoshiko Arima
Keyword(s):  
Word List ◽  
Blood Type ◽  
Shared Knowledge ◽  
Group Polarization ◽  
Consistent Condition ◽  
Word Lists ◽  
Group Members ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Individual Condition

Two studies investigated the effect of shared knowledge, manipulated using associated or randomly ordered word lists, on the correlation between group remembering and group polarization. Group polarization due to accumulation of information was expected only if it was consistent with shared knowledge among group members (the knowledge shared among group members before discussion). Consistency of information with shared knowledge was manipulated by lists of words that were ordered either randomly or in a manner consistent along with four stereotype categories. In Experiment 1, 159 college students answered a questionnaire about the common stereotype that blood type determines personality; half were given lists of words that were consistent with the stereotype (consistent condition) and the other half, randomly ordered word lists (inconsistent condition). After completion of the questionnaire, they were given, a surprise free-recall test including words from the lists that had appeared in the questionnaire; the test was administered in a group (group condition) or individual (individual condition) setting. The results indicated that stereotype-consistency of the word list reduced the groups' ability to detect incorrect answers compared with the individual condition. In Experiment 2 ( N = 132), the divergence of memory among group members was manipulated by altering the constitution of each group with regard to members' blood type. The results showed that the shift in the score representing belief in the blood-type stereotype correlated with the number of words recalled in the stereotype-consistent word-list condition.

scholarly journals Ego, Alter and Object: Explaining Personal Involvement with a Social Object Based on Presumed Collective Involvement and Group Identification.

2015 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 174 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joao Wachelke ◽  
Jean Natividade ◽  
Alexsandro De Andrade ◽  
Rafael Wolter
Keyword(s):  
Group Identification ◽  
Psychological Research ◽  
Social Psychological ◽  
Social Object ◽  
Personal Involvement ◽  
Object Based ◽  
Group Members ◽  
Social Psychological Research ◽  
The Individual ◽  
University Course

<p class="APAtexto"><span lang="EN-US">The present paper aims at testing a model to predict personal involvement with a social object which was inspired by the social psychological triangle proposed by Moscovici. The triangle bridges three essential aspects of social psychology: the individual, the Other and a social object. It was operationalized as an empirical model to explain personal involvement with a social topic from two predictors: perceived collective involvement of group members with the same topic and group identification. The sample was formed by 805 Brazilian undergraduates. The participants completed scales that measured their identification with university students, their perception of students’ involvement with two social objects, university course or job, and their own personal involvement with those topics. Regression analyses supported the hypothesis that group identification, perceived collective involvement and their interaction maintained positive relations with personal involvement. Discussion focuses on the relativity of results to specific objects, the complexity of determinant factors of personal involvement and the pertinence of the triangular look to characterize social psychological research.<em></em></span></p>

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.

Are attitudes the problem, and do psychologists have the answer? Relational cognition underlies intergroup relations

2012 ◽  
Vol 35 (6) ◽  
pp. 449-450 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sven Waldzus ◽  
Thomas W. Schubert ◽  
Maria-Paola Paladino
Keyword(s):  
Collective Action ◽  
Intergroup Relations ◽  
Prejudice Reduction ◽  
Psychological Processes ◽  
Negative Attitudes

AbstractThe focus on negative attitudes toward other groups has led to a dichotomy between the prejudice reduction and the collective action approach. To solve the resulting problems identified by Dixon et al., we suggest analyzing the psychological processes underlying the construction of relationships (and their alternatives) between own and other groups.

scholarly journals Intergroup Contact and Social Change

2016 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. 121-136 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nils Karl Reimer ◽  
Julia C. Becker ◽  
Angelika Benz ◽  
Oliver Christ ◽  
Kristof Dhont ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Social Change ◽  
Collective Action ◽  
Perceived Discrimination ◽  
Intergroup Contact ◽  
Group Identification ◽  
Transgender Students ◽  
Lgbt Activism ◽  
Bisexual And Transgender ◽  
Group Members ◽  
Positive Contact

Previous research has shown that (a) positive intergroup contact with an advantaged group can discourage collective action among disadvantaged-group members and (b) positive intergroup contact can encourage advantaged-group members to take action on behalf of disadvantaged outgroups. Two studies investigated the effects of negative as well as positive intergroup contact. Study 1 ( n = 482) found that negative but not positive contact with heterosexual people was associated with sexual-minority students’ engagement in collective action (via group identification and perceived discrimination). Among heterosexual students, positive and negative contacts were associated with, respectively, more and less LGB (lesbian, gay, bisexual) activism. Study 2 ( N = 1,469) found that only negative contact (via perceived discrimination) predicted LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) students’ collective action intentions longitudinally while only positive contact predicted heterosexual/cisgender students’ LGBT activism. Implications for the relationship between intergroup contact, collective action, and social change are discussed.

scholarly journals Toward a cultural psychology of collective action: Just how “core” are the core motivations for collective action?

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martijn van Zomeren
Keyword(s):  
Collective Action ◽  
Cultural Psychology ◽  
Group Identification ◽  
Efficacy Beliefs ◽  
The Philippines ◽  
Psychological Processes ◽  
Moral Conviction ◽  
The Core ◽  
Thematic Section

I review the interesting contributions to this special thematic section in light of what has been referred to as the four core motivations for collective action (i.e. moral conviction, and group identification, anger and efficacy beliefs). Specifically, I relate the key findings and insights from these articles — based on intriguing data from participant samples in the Philippines, Japan, Indonesia and China — to these core motivations for collective action, after which I raise the question of just how “core” these motivations are, with an eye to an abundance of cultural variance. I answer this question by suggesting a number of conceptual bridges to move the field forward toward a proper cultural psychology of collective action. Such a cultural psychology, in my view, does justice not only to the notion of core motivations for collective action but also to the abundance of cultural variance. Specifically, I suggest to think about culture in terms of guiding when collective action is more or less likely to occur, within which the core motivations reflect the psychological processes that facilitate it.

Cooperation and social policy: integrating evidence into practice – Introduction to the Issue

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Lazarus
Keyword(s):  
Social Policy ◽  
Real World ◽  
Policy Development ◽  
Common Good ◽  
Group Identification ◽  
Collective Good ◽  
The Common Good ◽  
The Common ◽  
Motivational Influences ◽  
The Individual

How can research evidence on cooperation best be exploited to the advantage of social policy? In this issue we bring together behavioural researchers with expertise in cooperation and social policy practitioners to work together on a series of issues in social policy for which the major challenge is for the players involved to cooperate for the common good. In this introductory paper I first explain the nature of cooperation, its potential for the collective good and the obstacles to achieving that potential. After a brief review of behavioural research applications to social policy, I summarise evidence for the many factors that promote cooperation in experimental and real world settings and that might be employed in the policy arena. These factors represent the influence of a small number of motivational influences including reciprocity, fairness, reputation, group identification and social norms. Analysis of the research findings reveals ways in which the real world difficulties in promoting action for the common good might be overcome. Evolutionary behavioural analysis adds additional insights useful for policy development. Beyond the value of the individual contributions the issue as a whole has the potential to uncover new understanding of the relationships between policy problems and their solutions.

scholarly journals Intergroup contact and social change: Implications of negative and positive contact for collective action in advantaged and disadvantaged groups

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nils Karl Reimer ◽  
Julia C. Becker ◽  
Angelika Benz ◽  
Oliver Christ ◽  
Kristof Dhont ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Social Change ◽  
Collective Action ◽  
Perceived Discrimination ◽  
Intergroup Contact ◽  
Group Identification ◽  
Lgbt Students ◽  
Lgbt Activism ◽  
Group Members ◽  
Positive Contact ◽  
The Relationship

Previous research has shown that (1) positive intergroup contact with an advantaged group can discourage collective action among disadvantaged-group members and (2) positive intergroup contact can encourage advantaged-group members to take action on behalf of disadvantaged outgroups. Two studies investigated the effects of negative as well as positive intergroup contact. Study 1 (N = 482) found that negative but not positive contact with heterosexual people was associated with sexual-minority students’ engagement in collective action (via group identification and perceived discrimination). Among heterosexual students, positive and negative contact were associated with, respectively, more and less LGB activism. Study 2 (N = 1,469) found that only negative contact (via perceived discrimination) predicted LGBT students’ collective action intentions longitudinally while only positive contact predicted heterosexual/cisgender students’ LGBT activism. Implications for the relationship between intergroup contact, collective action, and social change are discussed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document