Suchergebnisse

"Three studies examine how people's attributions of responsibility for terrorist attacks depend on their group membership and their identification with the victim (study 1) or their identification with the victim's or perpetrator's ingroup (studies 2 and 3). The authors observe that people's group membership (perpetrator group versus victim group) determines the judgments of responsibility for recent terrorist attacks. Members of the perpetrator group hold the direct perpetrators responsible, while members of the victim group perceive the perpetrator world as a whole as relatively responsible as well. Identification with the victim (study 1) or victim group (studies 2 and 3) strengthens attributions of responsibility to the whole perpetrator group, and this relationship is partially mediated by the perceived typicality of the perpetrator for the whole group. The authors discuss possible explanations for this pattern, and indicate the implications of these results in terms of improving intergroup relations." (author's abstract)

Three studies examine how people's attributions of responsibility for terrorist attacks depend on their group membership and their identification with the victim (study 1) or their identification with the victim's or perpetrator's ingroup (studies 2 and 3). We observe that people's group membership (perpetrator group versus victim group) determines the judgments of responsibility for recent terrorist attacks. Members of the perpetrator group hold the direct perpetrators responsible, while members of the victim group perceive the perpetrator world as a whole as relatively responsible as well. Identification with the victim (study 1) or victim group (studies 2 and 3) strengthens attributions of responsibility to the whole perpetrator group, and this relationship is partially mediated by the perceived typicality of the perpetrator for the whole group. We discuss possible explanations for this pattern, and indicate the implications of these results in terms of improving intergroup relations. Adapted from the source document.

In two studies, we predicted that support for reparation policies would be influenced positively by feelings of group‐based guilt and negatively by dehumanization of the outgroup. We also hypothesized that a valence manipulation of the ingroup's behavior would cause differences in such support which would be mediated by guilt. In the first study, we manipulated the valence of past ingroup behavior and assessed guilt, dehumanization, and reparation support. As expected, guilt predicted positively and dehumanization negatively participants' support. In addition, guilt partially mediated the manipulation effects on policy support. Consistent with previous research, guilt and dehumanization were unrelated. In Study 2, we assessed individual differences in dehumanization before the manipulation and examined their associations with guilt and reparation support. Initial analyses replicated Study 1. In addition, guilt partially mediated the influence of dehumanization on reparation support. Results suggest that the presence of guilt motivates support for reparation policies, while the absence of guilt explains in part why individual differences in dehumanization inhibit such support.

AbstractIn times of emergency, people include social networking sites (SNS) in their search for information and support. An online survey with an embedded experiment with two conditions focused on understanding whether and how SNS functions have a positive influence on perceived self‐efficacy, risk perception, and reported information sufficiency when integrated into a current emergency alert system like NL‐Alert. Participants were randomly assigned to a control condition showing the classical format of NL‐Alert or the expanded condition with added SNS functions (a newsfeed and marking oneself as safe). Results show that self‐efficacy and risk perception did not differ between conditions. Significantly higher degrees of information sufficiency were reported in the expanded condition. Consequences for emergency risk communication are discussed.

"An examination of potential outgroup-focused predictors of group-based guilt relating to past colonial conflicts involving Portugal and the Netherlands, specifically, the role of the perceptions of the ingroup towards the victimized outgroup, as well as on outgroup identification and meta-perceptions (i.e. the ingroup's beliefs regarding the outgroup's perceptions of it). Using Structural Equation Modeling in a Portuguese sample (N=178) and a Dutch sample (N=157), we found that the experience of group-based guilt due to colonial conflicts can be positively predicted by outgroup perceptions and outgroup identification (Dutch sample only). Meta-perceptions were a negative predictor of group-based guilt (Dutch sample only). Furthermore, our results show that group-based guilt is positively associated with compensatory behavioral intentions and perceived importance of remembering past colonial conflicts. Results point to the important role of outgroup-focused variables in shaping group-based guilt experiences relating to past conflicts between groups. The findings suggest possible avenues of further research and ways to improve intergroup relations following conflict." (author's abstract)

An examination of potential outgroup-focused predictors of group-based guilt relating to past colonial conflicts involving Portugal and the Netherlands, specifically, the role of the perceptions of the ingroup towards the victimized outgroup, as well as on outgroup identification and meta-perceptions (i.e. the ingroup's beliefs regarding the outgroup's perceptions of it). Using Structural Equation Modeling in a Portuguese sample (N = 178) and a Dutch sample (N = 157), we found that the experience of group-based guilt due to colonial conflicts can be positively predicted by outgroup perceptions and outgroup identification (Dutch sample only). Meta-perceptions were a negative predictor of group-based guilt (Dutch sample only). Furthermore, our results show that group-based guilt is positively associated with compensatory behavioral intentions and perceived importance of remembering past colonial conflicts. Results point to the important role of outgroup-focused variables in shaping group-based guilt experiences relating to past conflicts between groups. The findings suggest possible avenues of further research and ways to improve intergroup relations following conflict. Adapted from the source document.

Two studies investigated the reactions of minority group members to messages about identity expression by ingroup and outgroup sources. Our main hypothesis was that compared to ingroup sources, outgroup sources arouse more anger when they argue for identity suppression. In the first study homosexuals evaluated an outgroup source arguing for identity suppression more negatively than an ingroup source, felt more threatened by this source and as a result, experienced stronger feelings of anger towards this source. The second study among members of a language-based minority replicated and extended these findings. Furthermore we showed that the anger that is experienced towards an outgroup source causes a willingness to change the opinion of this source. When ingroup or outgroup sources supported identity expression, evaluations and experience of anger did not differ in both studies. The importance of a source's group membership in reacting to opinions about one's group is discussed.

Two studies investigated the role of domain relevance in the experience of group-based anger among disadvantaged groups using structural equation models. In the first study, Surinamese people to whom the slavery past was more relevant made stronger attributions of outgroup-blame and experienced more anger. This effect was above and beyond the influence of group identification. In the second study relevance of women's status position in society predicted outgroup-blame and group-based anger. In both studies domain relevance and anger were predictive of the tendencies to engage in action demanding reparation, as well as of the desire for the outgroup to engage in reparation. The role of domain relevance for intergroup emotions is considered.

In two studies we examined whether forging a psychological bond with a nation's colonization past facilitates the experience of positive and negative group-based self-conscious emotions as a function of a positive or negative manipulation of this past. Because people need to belong, we hypothesized that stronger family involvement in a nation's colonization past (i.e. involved ancestors) evokes stronger a positive self-conscious emotions after positive descriptions of the nation's colonizing past, and stronger negative self-conscious emotions after negative descriptions. In Study 1, we found support for these hypotheses in a real-life setting in which Dutch people actually found out whether their ancestors were involved in the colonization of Indonesia or not. In Study 2, we manipulated family involvement and valence of the past. Results offered support for the tested hypotheses. Implications of the results are discussed in relation to theories on identity and emotion.