Suchergebnisse

Public debates tend to see social inequality as resulting from individual decisions people make, for instance with respect to their education or lifestyle. Solutions are often sought in supporting individuals to make better choices. This neglects the importance of social groups and communities in determining individual outcomes. A moral perspective on social inequality questions the fairness of insisting on individual responsibilities, when members of some groups systematically receive fewer opportunities than others. The essays in this book have been prepared by experts from different disciplines, ranging from philosophy to engineering, and from economics to epidemiology. On the basis of recent scientific insights, World of Difference examines how group memberships impact on individual outcomes in four key domains: health, education and work, migration, and the environment. This offers a new moral perspective on social inequality, which policy makers tend to neglect.

part, One Introduction -- chapter 1 Why Study Morality? -- chapter 2 Groups as Moral Anchors -- part, Two Intrapersonal level -- chapter 3 We All Want to be Moral -- chapter 4 Moral Lapses and Moral Self-Views -- part, Three Interpersonal level -- chapter 5 Whom Do We Trust? -- chapter 6 Seeking Moral Guidance -- part, Four Intragroup level -- chapter 7 What We Stand For -- chapter 8 Moral Atmospheres -- part, Five Intergroup level -- chapter 9 Achieving Moral Distinction -- chapter 10 Who is Worthy of Moral Treatment? -- part, Six Conclusion -- chapter 11 How Will This Help Us? -- chapter 12 Making a Difference.

Public debates tend to see social inequality as resulting from individual decisions people make, for instance with respect to their education or lifestyle. Solutions are often sought in supporting individuals to make better choices. This neglects the importance of social groups and communities in determining individual outcomes. A moral perspective on social inequality questions the fairness of insisting on individual responsibilities, when members of some groups systematically receive fewer opportunities than others. The essays in this book have been prepared by experts from different disciplines, ranging from philosophy to engineering, and from economics to epidemiology. On the basis of recent scientific insights, World of Difference examines how group memberships impact on individual outcomes in four key domains: health, education and work, migration, and the environment. This offers a new moral perspective on social inequality, which policy makers tend to neglect.

Morality indicates what is the 'right' and what is the 'wrong' way to behave. It is one of the most popular areas of research in contemporary social psychology, driven in part by recent political-economic crises and the behavioral patterns they exposed. In the past, work on morality tended to highlight individual concerns and moral principles, but more recently researchers have started to address the group context of moral behavior. In Morality and the Regulation of Social Behaviour: Groups as moral anchors Naomi Ellemers builds on her extensive research experience to draw together a wide range of insights and findings on morality. She offers an essential integrative summary of the social functions of moral phenomena, examines how social groups contribute to moral values, and explains how groups act as 'moral anchors'. Her analysis suggests that intra-group dynamics and the desire to establish a distinct group identity are highly relevant to understanding the implications of morality for the regulation of individual behaviour. Yet, this group-level context has not been systematically taken into account in research on morality, nor is it used as a matter of course to inform attempts to influence moral behavior. Building on social identity and self-categorization principles, this unique book explicitly considers social groups as an important source of moral values, and examines how this impacts on individual decision making as well as collective behaviours and relations between groups in society.

In an experimental study (N = 60) we showed that gender differences play an important role in the extent to which people expect work goal differences between themselves and their collaborating partner. Participants who interact with a same-sex partner expect this person to pursue the same work goal as the self, whereas those who interact with an opposite-sex partner expect this person to have a different work goal to the self. When these expectancies were confirmed, participants felt relatively little disappointment, developed a clear image of their partner, and felt committed toward future collaboration. However, an expectancy violation caused participants to respond relatively negatively on these measures. These effects are discussed in relation to expectancy violation and congruence theory.

In this study we examined the responses of male and female research participants to information about the endorsement of either old-fashioned or modern sexist views by a sample of either men or women. We predicted that expressions of modern sexism may seem unobjectionable but can have negative consequences. Moreover, they can impair behavioral responses and therefore remain unchallenged. The results show that female participants in particular were relatively disinclined to recognize expressions of modern sexism as prejudicial. Furthermore, while old-fashioned sexist views generally elicited hostility, exposure to modern sexist opinions evoked anxiety in female participants, while it decreased anxiety among male participants. We conclude that modern forms of prejudice may prove perilous: although they may undermine the self, they seem inoffensive and as a result remain unchallenged.

To contribute to the examination of the effects of computer-mediated communication (CMC) on collaborative work, the impact of anonymity on willingness to exert effort on behalf of a group was examined. Two aspects of anonymity were independently manipulated: visibility of respondents (not visible, visible) and visibility of responses (not visible, visible) to the in-group. The role of degree of identification as moderator of anonymity effects was also examined. The results show that anonymity manipulations affect group members'effort on behalf of the group, but only when group identification is low. Low identifiers chose to work harder with the group either when they were totally anonymous or when they were totally visible to other in-group members. The implications of the results for the understanding of group processes through CMC are discussed.

AbstractThis contribution aims to explain when and why policies that increase social accountability are likely to have unintended and counterproductive effects on the social performance of organizations. The Behavioral Regulation Model applies insights from social identity theory to recent research on moral psychology. This elucidates that deep concerns about social approval for one's morality and good intentions, raise "the paradox of morality": The motivation to signal endorsement of social values and good intentions prompts people to justify and defend shortcomings in these domains, instead of addressing them. We demonstrate how this approach and research supporting it can help recognize and understand a range of defensive responses organizations and their representatives are likely to show. Subsequently, we specify how policymakers, regulators, and other stakeholders can circumvent these counterproductive effects and help people in organizations to show more constructive responses toward social impact improvement.

Psychological research on the origins and consequences of prejudice, discrimination, and stereotyping has moved into previously uncharted directions through the introduction of neuroscientific measures. Psychologists can now address issues that are difficult to examine with traditional methodologies and monitor motivational and emotional as they develop during ongoing intergroup interactions, thus enabling the empirical investigation of the fundamental biological bases of prejudice.However, several very promising strands of research have largely developed independently of each other

AbstractMediation has developed into an established discipline consisting of a variety of tactics that may be employed when intervening in different types of conflicts. One particular type of conflict that has been identified as difficult, if not impossible, to resolve is value conflicts. Research dedicated to developing interventions aimed at resolving value‐based disputes is limited. To address this gap between research and practice, we interviewed professional mediators to gain insight into the techniques employed when intervening in value conflicts. This preliminary exploratory study resulted in several propositions. The analysis of the transcripts is presented, and plans for future research are discussed.

It is argued here that expectations of bias (vs. no bias) play a key role in explaining reactions to decisions made by outgroup authorities. Two experiments demonstrate that decision acceptance (Experiment 1) and intentions to protest against an outgroup authority's decisions (Experiment 2) are affected by procedural fairness when the authority has a reputation of being unbiased, but not when the authority's reputation suggests bias. By contrast, some evidence is also found suggesting that reactions to an outgroup authority's decisions are affected by the favorability of the outcome when the authority has a reputation of being biased, but not when the authority has a reputation of being unbiased. Mediation analyses indicate that two different processes account for these effects.

It is argued here that expectations of bias (vs. no bias) play a key role in explaining reactions to decisions made by outgroup authorities. Two experiments demonstrate that decision acceptance (Experiment 1) and intentions to protest against an outgroup authority's decisions (Experiment 2) are affected by procedural fairness when the authority has a reputation of being unbiased, but not when the authority's reputation suggests bias. By contrast, some evidence is also found suggesting that reactions to an outgroup authority's decisions are affected by the favorability of the outcome when the authority has a reputation of being biased, but not when the authority has a reputation of being unbiased. Mediation analyses indicate that two different processes account for these effects.