For the Sake of the Eternal Group

Abstract

We introduce the distinction between perceiving the group as Intra-Generational (IG; including only the present generation of group members) and Trans-Generational (TG; including all past, present, and future generations of the group). In four studies ( N = 1,265) administered to Jewish Israeli, Palestinian Israeli, American, and Swedish samples, we demonstrate that a tendency to perceive the group as TG is related to willingness to endure ingroup suffering and that this relationship is mediated by the degree to which the interest of the group as a whole is given primacy over the interest of the group as a collection of group members (Primacy of Interest). Furthermore, experimentally raising the salience of the group as TG leads to increased willingness to endure ingroup suffering as compared with raising the salience of the group as IG, and the effect of the TG salience manipulation is mediated by Primacy of Interest.

Conceiving one‘s national group as transgenerational: Effects on attitudes towards ‘foreign’ and diaspora migrants

“…In particular, we will show that an individual's representation of the national ingroup as not only including the current generation but also the past as well as future generations is related to the person's evaluation of different outgroups. Following Kahn et al [1], we thus distinguish between perceiving the group as transgenerational (TG) and perceiving it as intragenerational (IG). We test (and confirm) the assumption that viewing one's nation as TG leads to more negative evaluations of what we term 'foreign' migrants but less so with regard to what we term diaspora migrants (see the sections below for more details on these types of migrant groups).…”

“…Namely, perceived cultural continuity refers to the extent to which group norms are seen as transmitted from one generation to another, and perceived historical continuity refers to the extent to which the different ages, periods, and events in the group history are perceived to be causally interconnected [6,29]. Although PCC includes a temporal dimension of group perception, it differs from TG by the fact that it does not deal explicitly with the level of inclusiveness in its members' group perception (i.e., with the question of who is included in the national group and who is not; see Kahn et al [1]). Rather, it refers to the extent to which group members perceive the culture and history of the group to be closely interconnected across history.…”

“…Social psychological approaches to understand the nature, conditions, and consequences of identifying with groups have for a long time primarily viewed the group as a current structure, e.g., individuals currently belonging to different football clubs or people belonging to particular nations. With regard to the identification with groups such as the nation, the inclusion of a temporal dimension can, however, be of particular relevance [1]. Such temporal dimensions of group identification have long been the domain of historians, philosophers, cultural anthropologists, and political science scholars, in particular with regard to the concept of nationalism [e.g., [2][3][4].…”

“…Kahn, Klar, and Roccas [1] have presented a social psychological approach to the concept of group identification that explicitly incorporates the temporal dimension. According to this approach, viewing one´s group as transgenerational is thought to be associated with a sense of belonging and loyalty that not only lies with those who are current members of the group, but with all the generations of the group that ever have existed and ever will exist.…”

“…Kahn et al's [1] approach assumes that the extent to which a person views the ingroup as spanning across past, current and future generations (as opposed to just encompassing the current generation) is related to other psychological phenomena such as the acceptance of endured ingroup sacrifices.…”