Inter–Group Helping Relations as Power Relations: Maintaining or Challenging Social Dominance Between Groups Through Helping

Abstract

The article presents a model which proposes that groups may establish or challenge dominance through helping. It begins by noting the centrality of inequality in helping and inter-group relations. The implications of this to affirmative action programs are noted. Following this, a model of inter-group helping relations is proposed. It suggests that when the high status group provides to the low status group dependency oriented help, it may do so in order to establish dominance. The willing receptivity of the low status group may indicate its acceptance of the inequality, and lack of receptivity for such help may be motivated by the desire to achieve social equality. Empirical findings that are relevant to this analysis are presented in studies using Israeli students as research participants. Inter-Group Helping Relations: IntroductionResearch on the social psychology of helping behavior has focused on interpersonal helping and has paid less attention to the problem of inter-group helping (Schroeder, Penner, Dovidio & Piliavin, 1995). Yet many helping relations occur between groups (e.g., international aid, assistance given by an advantaged to a less advantaged group); moreover, the self categorization theory maintains that when the group affiliations of the helper and recipient are salient, helping interactions between individuals must be viewed as inter-group helping interactions (Turner,

Endorsing help for others that you oppose for yourself: Mind perception alters the perceived effectiveness of paternalism.

“…Indeed, some prior research suggests that power differences between groups are a meaningful predictor of dependency-oriented aid (Nadler, 2002). We therefore conducted Experiment 4b to test whether our findings would replicate when there was no power difference between our two experimental conditions.…”

“…Our theoretical account also integrates treatment of paternalistic forms of aid that have previously been studied separately across different literaturessuch as affirmative action (Pratkanis & Turner, 1999), redistribution (Baker, 2015), nudges (Sunstein, 2016), and dependencyoriented help (Nadler, 2002)-that all share the same feature of limiting individual freedoms.…”

Knocking on the Outgroup's Door: Seeking Outgroup Help Under Conditions of Task or Relational Conflict

“…Nadler introduced a model of intergroup helping that is based on the notion that groups strive to challenge or maintain social dominance relations and use the exchange of help as a tool to achieve that (Nadler, 2002;Nadler & Halabi, 2006;Nadler, Harpaz-Gorodeisky, & Ben-David, 2009). Members of low-status groups are frequently faced with a dilemma between (a) the motivation to improve their group's realistically disadvantaged position by seeking and accepting help from other groups and (b) the motivation to preserve and enhance their group's positive distinctiveness by avoiding the appearance of helplessness and dependence.…”

“…The need for autonomy is recognized in the helping literature, which distinguishes between autonomy-oriented help and dependency-oriented help (e.g., Jackson & Esses, 2000;Nadler, 2002;Nadler & Halabi, 2006). Autonomyoriented help provides recipients with the tools to solve their problems on their own.…”

“…Drawing on social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) and self-categorization theory (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987), we argue that when group affiliations of helper and helpee are salient, helping interactions between individuals must be viewed as intergroup interactions (for similar arguments, see Levine & Crowther, 2008;Nadler, 2002). Because people derive an important part of their identity (i.e., their social identity) from their membership in social groups, group members are often concerned with the need to positively differentiate their group from other groups, that is, to stress their group's distinctiveness and portray their group as better than relevant comparison groups.…”