Collective guilt, moral outrage, and support for helping the poor: A matter of system versus in‐group responsibility framing

Abstract

We examined how the framing of responsibility for reducing socio‐economic inequality affects individuals' emotional reactions towards the poor and the willingness to engage in prosocial actions. Attribution of responsibility to either the system (government and institutions), the less deprived in‐group, or the disadvantaged out‐group (poor) was measured (Study 1) and manipulated (Study 2). Consistent with our hypotheses, moral outrage was higher than collective guilt when system responsibility for inequalities was put forth, but collective guilt arose to reach the level of moral outrage when in‐group responsibility was emphasized. Moreover, distinguishing between collective guilt for action and for inaction, we found guilt for inaction more difficult and thus less likely to arise, unless responsibility was put on the in‐group. Collective emotions were also found to be negatively linked to system justification motivation illustrating the palliative function of legitimization processes. Finally, moral outrage predicted the willingness to act upon socio‐economic inequalities both when the system's and in‐group's responsibility was emphasized, whereas collective guilt for action (but not for inaction) predicted support for prosocial actions only when the in‐group's responsibility was engaged. These findings suggest that the specific group‐based emotions in response to poverty depend on whether the system or the in‐group is held responsible and differentially predict individuals' commitment to act.

Self-Transcendent Emotions and Their Social Effects: Awe, Elevation and Kama Muta Promote a Human Identification and Motivations to Help Others

“…This approach (i.e., the Social Identity Approach, see Hornsey, 2008 ) has been taken into account in theoretical and empirical studies on collective action (for a review of identities and collective action, see van Stekelenburg and Klandermans, 2007 ) and it continues to influence different models of this form of prosocial behavior. The influence of shared identities in different forms of collective participation has been studied as prerequisites ( Thomas et al, 2009 ), outcomes ( Páez et al, 2015 ) or both ( Drury and Reicher, 2005 ), and as moderators of several relationships in the literature (e.g., Shepherd et al, 2013 ; Krauth-Gruber and Bonnot, 2019 ).…”

Digital Moral Outrage, Collective Guilt, And Collective Action: An Examination of How Twitter Users Expressed Their Anguish During India's Covid-19 Related Migrant Crisis

“…Research linking group-based emotions and people's intention to take collective action to mitigate injustice have often found that moral outrage and collective guilt influence people's collective behavior (Krauth-Gruber & Bonnot, 2020). In the previous studies, scholars argued that people act when they feel a relevant group-based emotion (emotion-based route) and/or believe that they can achieve change (efficacy-based route) (Van Zomeren et al, 2004).…”

“…Moral Outrage (MO): Expression of moral outrage entails putting responsibility on the system (Batson et al, 2007;Krauth-Gruber & Bonnot, 2020), especially on the government and the authorities responsible for providing justice and an equitable environment to the citizens. In this study, we coded moral outrage in the following ways:…”

“…Poverty, humanitarian crises and gory narratives have the potential to evoke strong emotions among people ( Krauth-Gruber & Bonnot, 2020 ). Every time an image of a distraught citizen is splashed across mass media, the angry public urges a strong corrective action from the responsible authorities.…”

Neoliberal Ideology in France: A Qualitative Inquiry

“…Indeed, even politicians who held economically liberal views remained very careful not to “question the principle of welfare” (Béland and Hansen, 2000 ). In a study conducted in France, participants -French university students- still rate the State as most responsible for reducing poverty (Krauth-Gruber and Bonnot, 2020 ), which suggests that the State is still credited with social prerogatives, at least among this sub-population.…”