In this article, the authors present two laboratory experiments testing a group-level perspective on the role of empathy in helping. Experiment 1 tested the authors' predictions in an intercultural context of helping. Confirming their specific Empathy x Group Membership moderation hypothesis, empathy had a stronger effect on helping intentions when the helper and the target belonged to the same cultural group than when they belonged to different groups. Experiment 2 replicated these findings in a modified minimal group paradigm using laboratory-created groups. Moreover, this second experiment also provides evidence for the hypothesized psychological mechanisms underlying the empathy-(ingroup) helping relationship. Specifically, analyses in the ingroup condition confirmed that the strength of the empathy-(ingroup) helping relationship systematically varied as a function of perceived similarities among ingroup members. The general implications of these findings for empathy-motivated helping are discussed.
White Americans who participate in the Black Lives Matter movement, men who attended the Women’s March, and people from the Global North who work to reduce poverty in the Global South—advantaged group members (sometimes referred to as allies) often engage in action for disadvantaged groups. Tensions can arise, however, over the inclusion of advantaged group members in these movements, which we argue can partly be explained by their motivations to participate. We propose that advantaged group members can be motivated to participate in these movements (a) to improve the status of the disadvantaged group, (b) on the condition that the status of their own group is maintained, (c) to meet their own personal needs, and (d) because this behavior aligns with their moral beliefs. We identify potential antecedents and behavioral outcomes associated with these motivations before describing the theoretical contribution our article makes to the psychological literature.
Building on an integration of research findings on intergroup behavior from multiple fields of scientific inquiry (biological and cultural paleoanthropology, social psychology), as well as research on the HEXACO personality framework (e.g., Ashton & Lee, 2007), 3 independent studies (total N = 1,007) were conducted to introduce and test a fresh personality perspective on human xenophilia. Even though the studies focused on different criteria (Study 1: favorable attitudes toward contact with immigrants, Study 2: habitual cross-cultural exploration, Study 3: favorable attitudes toward contact with indigenous people) and employed different operationalizations of major personality traits (the HEXACO Personality Inventory-Revised [HEXACO-PI-R], the 10-item Big Five Inventory [BFI-10]) results were remarkably similar. First, path analyses confirmed that major personality traits were significant and direct predictors of xenophilia that were independent of the contributions of individual differences commonly predicting xenophobic reactions across studies. Second, and in line with the authors' more specific hypotheses, hierarchical regression analyses also corroborated that individual differences in the levels of endeavor-related personality traits (i.e., eXtraversion, Openness, and Conscientiousness) had a substantially greater power in predicting individual differences in xenophilia than individual differences in levels of altruism/cooperation-related traits (i.e., Honesty-Humility, Emotionality, and Agreeableness). The implications of these findings for more general psychological theorizing on human sociality are discussed.
The present paper extends the needs-based model of reconciliation to contexts marked by status inequalities rather than by overt intergroup aggression. Specifically, we investigated whether and when members of high-status versus low-status groups experience divergent socio-emotional needs vis-à-vis members of the respective other status group. Building on research informed by social identity theory, we hypothesized that the groups' different positions in the social hierarchy only translate into divergent needs when the status differences are perceived as illegitimate. In Study 1 (N = 130), we tested this prediction by manipulating status and perceived legitimacy of status differences in a setting with artificially created groups. Results confirmed that the need to be socially accepted by members of the other status group was stronger in high-status compared with low-status group members but, as expected, only when the status differences were perceived to be illegitimate. Also as predicted, the need to be empowered by the other status group was stronger in low-status compared with high-status group members, again only under conditions of illegitimate status differences. Study 2 (N = 169) further corroborated our perspective by replicating these findings in a naturalistic intergroup context. Implications for the role of legitimacy perceptions in determining differential socio-emotional needs and for the promotion of sustainable social change are discussed.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.