Search results

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.

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.

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.

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.

We investigate how the direct activation of relational versus instrumental concerns affects reactions to decisions made by an authority. It is demonstrated that when instrumental concerns are experimentally induced, people's evaluations of the authority (Studies 1 and 2) as well as their intentions to protest (Study 3) are more strongly affected by how the procedures used by the authority affect anticipated outcomes (i.e., whether procedures are favorably or unfavorably inaccurate) than when relational concerns are activated. By contrast, authority evaluations (Study 2) and protest intentions (Study 3) are more strongly affected by whether procedures used are fair (accurate) or unfair (inaccurate) when relational (versus instrumental) concerns are activated. These findings extend previous research where relational versus instrumental concerns were inferred, but not directly examined, to explain differences in responses to authorities' decisions.

"This cutting-edge handbook examines moral psychology and behaviour, uncovering layers of human morality through a comprehensive overview of topics and approaches. Featuring an array of expert international contributors, the book addresses five key themes: moral reasoning, moral judgments, moral emotions, moral behavior, and moral self-views. Each section includes empirical chapters that address these themes at the intrapersonal, interpersonal, intragroup, or intergroup level. Each section starts with a reflective chapter from a leading scholar in this field of study who shares their personal vision on key issues and future developments. Drawing on emerging research and featuring real-world examples, the book offers a deeper understanding of the social psychological factors that shape our moral behavior and how this plays out in our daily lives"--