Two experiments exploring the effects of social category membership on real-life helping behavior are reported. In Study 1, intergroup rivalries between soccer fans are used to examine the role of identity in emergency helping. An injured stranger wearing an in-group team shirt is more likely to be helped than when wearing a rival team shirt or an unbranded sports shirt. In Study 2, a more inclusive social categorization is made salient for potential helpers. Helping is extended to those who were previously identified as out-group members but not to those who do not display signs of group membership. Taken together, the studies show the importance of both shared identity between bystander and victim and the inclusiveness of salient identity for increasing the likelihood of emergency intervention.

For most of the history of prejudice research, negativity has been treated as its emotional and cognitive signature, a conception that continues to dominate work on the topic. By this definition, prejudice occurs when we dislike or derogate members of other groups. Recent research, however, has highlighted the need for a more nuanced and 'inclusive' (Eagly 2004) perspective on the role of intergroup emotions and beliefs in sustaining discrimination. On the one hand, several independent lines of research have shown that unequal intergroup relations are often marked by attitudinal complexity, with positive responses such as affection and admiration mingling with negative responses such as contempt and resentment. Simple antipathy is the exception rather than the rule. On the other hand, there is mounting evidence that nurturing bonds of affection between the advantaged and the disadvantaged sometimes entrenches rather than disrupts wider patterns of discrimination. Notably, prejudice reduction interventions may have ironic effects on the political attitudes of the historically disadvantaged, decreasing their perceptions of injustice and willingness to engage in collective action to transform social inequalities. These developments raise a number of important questions. Has the time come to challenge the assumption that negative evaluations are inevitably the cognitive and affective hallmarks of discrimination? Is the orthodox concept of prejudice in danger of side-tracking, if not obstructing, progress towards social justice in a fuller sense? What are the prospects for reconciling a prejudice reduction model of change, designed to get people to like one another more, with a collective action model of change, designed to ignite struggles to achieve intergroup equality?Keywords: Prejudice; intergroup relations; social change 2 Over the course of the past century, the concept of prejudice has become increasingly central to scientific thinking about relations between groups, marking a profound moral and political as well as conceptual shift.During late 19 th and early 20 th centuries, many scholars favoured conceptual frameworks based around notions of group differences, hierarchy and biological inheritance (e.g. see Haller 1971;Goldberg 1993). By rooting the causes of ethnic and racial hostility in the supposed characteristics of its targets, they upheld the traditional doctrine of the 'well-deserved reputation' (Zadwadzki 1948). Between the 1920s and 1940s, however, an 'abrupt reversal' (Samelson, 1978 occurred in scientific thinking. Rather than the inherited deficiencies of minorities, social disharmony was attributed increasingly to the bigotry of majority group members 1 . In the years following the end the Second World War, the concept of prejudice became central to the explanation of a range of social problems, including problems of discrimination, inequality, ideological extremism, and genocide. By the 1950s, prejudice research had "… spread like a flood both in social psychology and in adjacent ...

This paper investigates the arguments used in public documents to mobilise Bulgarians against the deportation of Jews in World War II. We focus on the key documents relating to the first wave of mobilisation in 1940-1941 as provided by Todorov in The Fragility of Goodness (2001). We demonstrate that these documents are based on three types of argument. The first, category inclusion, treats the Jews as part of a common ingroup rather than as constituting a separate outgroup. The second, category norms, proposes that help for those under attack is a core aspect of ingroup identity. The third, category interest, suggests that the ingroup will be harmed if Jews are persecuted. In each case, the predominant category on which arguments are based is national identity (i.e. 'we Bulgarians . . . '). This analysis is used to validate and extend a social identity of model of helping. The theoretical and practical implications of such an approach are considered in the discussion.

This paper outlines a new approach to the study of bystander intervention. Using insights derived from self-categorization theory (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987), we explore the social category relations among those present in the context of physical violence. The paper describes two experiments that manipulate the social category relations between (a) bystander and fellow bystanders, and (b) bystander and victim. Analysis indicates that fellow bystanders are only influential when they are in-group rather than out-group members. Furthermore, bystanders are more likely to help victims who are described as in-group as opposed to out-group members. Overall, the findings suggest an important role for a self-categorization perspective in developing strategies to promote bystander intervention.

Three studies consider a basis for intergroup helping. Specifically, they show that group members may help others to disconfirm a stereotype of their own group as mean. Study 1 shows that Scots believe they are seen as mean by the English, resent this stereotype, are motivated to refute it, and believe out-group helping is a particularly effective way of doing so. Study 2 shows that increasing the salience of the English stereotype of the Scottish as mean leads Scots to accentuate the extent to which Scots are depicted as generous. Study 3 shows that increasing the salience of the stereotype of the Scots as mean results in an increase in the help volunteered to out-group members. These results highlight how strategic concerns may result in out-group helping. In turn, they underscore the point that helping others may be a means to advance a group's interest.

Four experiments explored the interaction of group size, social categorization, and bystander behavior. In Study 1, increasing group size inhibited intervention in a street violence scenario when bystanders were strangers but encouraged intervention when bystanders were friends. Study 2 replicated and extended these findings to social category members. When gender identity was salient, group size encouraged intervention when bystanders and victim shared social category membership. In addition, group size interacted with context-specific norms that both inhibit and encourage helping. Study 3 used physical co-presence and gender identities to examine these social category effects. Increasing group size of women produced greater helping of a female victim, but increasing group size of men did not. Additionally, increasing numbers of out-group bystanders resulted in less intervention from women but more intervention from men. Study 4 replicated these findings with a measure of real-life helping behavior. Taken together, the findings indicate that the bystander effect is not a generic consequence of increasing group size. When bystanders share group-level psychological relationships, group size can encourage as well as inhibit helping.

No abstract

The authors developed a Self-Categorization Theory (SCT) approach to bystander behavior. Participants were 100 undergraduates at an English university. The authors made either a European or a British identity salient. Participants then rated their likelihood of offering both financial and political help after natural disasters in Europe and South America. When European (but not British) identity was salient, participants were less likely to offer help for disasters in South America than Europe. They were also more likely to offer financial help after disasters in Europe when European non-British identity was salient. There were no differences in levels of emotional response to disasters by identity salience. Results indicate that social category relations rather than geographical proximity or emotional reaction are most important in increasing helping behavior after natural disasters.