Untitled

Behner, Robert; Montada, Leo; Müller, Lothar; Müller-Fohrbrodt, Gisela

doi:10.1023/a:1007640925819

Cited by 52 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We propose that two group-based emotions, group-based guilt and sympathy, will be strong predictors of the ingroup-focused motivation. Group-based guilt (often referred to as collective guilt or White guilt in the context of race-relations; for example, Wohl et al, 2006) is an ingroup-focused emotion invoked when the advantaged ingroup feels responsible for the treatment of the disadvantaged group (Iyer et al, 2003;Iyer & Leach, 2008;Montada & Schneider, 1989;Schmitt et al, 2000).…”

Section: Emotionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond Allyship: Motivations for Advantaged Group Members to Engage in Action for Disadvantaged Groups

Radke

Kutlaca

Siem

et al. 2020

Pers Soc Psychol Rev

209

199

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Emotionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond Allyship: Motivations for Advantaged Group Members to Engage in Action for Disadvantaged Groups

Radke

Kutlaca

Siem

et al. 2020

Pers Soc Psychol Rev

209

199

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The original focus of this work was on guilt resulting from an in-group's historically exploitative actions, and thus what might motivate group members to redress the consequences of their own group's bad behavior. Group-based guilt is associated with greater desire for a wide range of harm-reducing actions: apology, reparations, policies reversing poor treatment, or suppression of further aggression (Berndsen & McGarthy, 2010;Branscombe et al, 2002;Doosje et al, 1998;Iyer & Leach, 2010;Iyer et al, 2003;Leach, Iyer, & Pedersen, 2006;Maitner et al, 2007;McGarty et al, 2005;Schmitt, Behner, Montada, Muller, & Muller-Fohrbrodt, 2000;Swim & Miller, 1999;Wohl & Branscombe, 2005). In-group-directed pride and satisfaction, in contrast, both decrease intentions to redress poor behavior on the in-group's part (Harth, Kessler, & Leach, 2008;Maitner et al, 2007).…”

Section: Group-based Emotion Precursors Of Restitution Repair and Rmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intergroup emotions.

Mackie¹,

Smith²

2015

APA Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology, Volume 2: Group Processes.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The terminology and experimental methodology used and covered in this review are largely consistent with the literature in economics, where advantageous IA is defined as preference for fair vs. unfair outcomes, and where IA is mainly investigated by means of economic games (e.g., Fehr and Schmidt, 1999). By contrast, psychologists often label advantageous IA guilt and frequently focus on self-reports which can be linked to behavioral intentions underlying other-regarding preferences (e.g., Schmitt et al, 2000), and related concepts, like, e.g., morality , justice , or ethics . We argue that studying IA in animals is not only interesting by itself, but paves the way for harmonizing semantic differences between disciplines as well as highlighting conceptual similarities.…”

Section: Advantageous Inequity Aversionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social and Non-social Mechanisms of Inequity Aversion in Non-human Animals

Oberliessen

Kalenscher

2019

Front. Behav. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research over the last decades has shown that humans and other animals reveal behavioral and emotional responses to unequal reward distributions between themselves and other conspecifics. However, cross-species findings about the mechanisms underlying such inequity aversion are heterogeneous, and there is an ongoing discussion if inequity aversion represents a truly social phenomenon or if it is driven by non-social aspects of the task. There is not even general consensus whether inequity aversion exists in non-human animals at all. In this review article, we discuss variables that were found to affect inequity averse behavior in animals and examine mechanistic and evolutionary theories of inequity aversion. We review a range of moderator variables and focus especially on the comparison of social vs. non-social explanations of inequity aversion. Particular emphasis is placed on the importance of considering the experimental design when interpreting behavior in inequity aversion tasks: the tasks used to probe inequity aversion are often based on impunity-game-like designs in which animals are faced with unfair reward distributions, and they can choose to accept the unfair offer, or reject it, leaving them with no reward. We compare inequity-averse behavior in such impunity-game-like designs with behavior in less common choice-based designs in which animals actively choose between fair and unfair rewards distributions. This review concludes with a discussion of the different mechanistic explanations of inequity aversion, especially in light of the particular features of the different task designs, and we give suggestions on experimental requirements to understand the “true nature” of inequity aversion.

show abstract

Untitled

Cited by 52 publications

References 42 publications

Beyond Allyship: Motivations for Advantaged Group Members to Engage in Action for Disadvantaged Groups

Beyond Allyship: Motivations for Advantaged Group Members to Engage in Action for Disadvantaged Groups

Intergroup emotions.

Social and Non-social Mechanisms of Inequity Aversion in Non-human Animals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About