Intergroup helping relations

Nadler, Arie

doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.05.016

Cited by 25 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The present study contributes to the extensive body of research on predictors of help giving decisions, such as who helps others, when and why, specifically given the notion of duality embedded in helping (see Nadler, ). On the one hand, human societies emphasize the quality of being sensitive to the plight of fellow humans.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Future time perspective and interpersonal empathy: Implications for preferring autonomy‐ versus dependency‐oriented helping

Chernyak‐Hai

Halabi

2018

British J Social Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examined whether potential help givers' future time perspective (FTP) accounts for the decision to give a person in need dependency-oriented help (i.e., providing the complete solution) or autonomy-oriented help (i.e., providing the means to solve a problem). In addition, building on past research on the effects of empathy in help giving decisions, the present research explored whether helpers' willingness to offer specific type of help is predicted by the interaction between FTP and interpersonal empathy. We explored FTP as both a personal predisposition (Study 1) and an experimentally induced state of mind (Study 2). The present research provides a novel perspective on theory and research on help giving behaviour, FTP, and empathy, by showing that when interpersonal empathy is high, considerations of the future predict readiness to give help that promotes person's present and future independent coping rather than help that creates and preserves social dependence.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Future time perspective and interpersonal empathy: Implications for preferring autonomy‐ versus dependency‐oriented helping

Chernyak‐Hai

Halabi

2018

British J Social Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…From this perspective, when helping people outside the group, it makes sense that the types of 'other' most likely to receive aid would be those who are valued, pose little threat, and need help the most (see also Cuddy et al, 2007;Nadler, 2002). Results confirm that status differences promote giving to outgroup targets (see also Halabi & Nadler, 2017;Nadler, 2002Nadler, , 2016) and…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 83%

“…The Intergroup Helping as Status Relations model, based in part on Social Identity Theory, was first put forward in 2002 by Nadler and has since been elaborated (Halabi & Nadler, 2017;Nadler, 2002Nadler, , 2016. According to this model, groups can use helping as a way to maintain or establish dominance.…”

Section: Models Of Strategic Helping Of Outgroup Beneficiariesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…According to this model, groups can use helping as a way to maintain or establish dominance. When helping occurs between members of different groups, it inherently indicates relative status (Halabi & Nadler, 2017;Nadler, 2002Nadler, , 2016. In this approach, needing help communicates low status and offering help communicates high status.…”

Section: Models Of Strategic Helping Of Outgroup Beneficiariesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While these motives stress the interests of the individual donor, people may also give in order to promote the strategic interests of their important social groups. For example, donors sometimes give to restore a threatened group identity, to make their own group look good in front of others, or to demonstrate the power of their group over beneficiaries (Nadler, 2002(Nadler, , 2016Nadler & Chernyak-Hai, 2014;Nadler et al, 2009;van Leeuwen, 2007van Leeuwen, , 2017van Leeuwen & Harinck, 2016).…”

Section: Multiple Motives For Givingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Toward a triadic understanding of charitable giving: how donors, beneficiaries, fundraisers, and social contexts influence donation decisions

Chapman¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This thesis applies social psychological theories about intergroup relations (e.g., Social Identity Theory, Tajfel, 1981; the Intergroup Helping Relations as Status Relations model, Nadler, 2002) to investigate the process and outcomes of charitable giving. Moving beyond the traditional focus on studying donors, this thesis uses a mixed-methods approach (surveys, experiments, thematic analysis, and literature review) to show that charitable giving is triadic, relational, and contextualized. That is, decisions about donations are informed by a triad of actors (donors, beneficiaries, and fundraisers), the relationships between them, and the wider social context. Chapter 1 provides a general overview of previous scholarly work on charitable giving and key psychological theories identified as relevant to my approach. Findings from Chapters 2 and 3 confirm that beneficiaries affect donor choices and that the relationships (e.g., shared identities) between particular donors and particular beneficiaries are especially important. Chapter 2 comprises two surveys of confirmed (N = 675) and self-reported (N = 376) donors, which show that donors are not universally generous. Instead, consistent with the social identity approach (Tajfel, 1981; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher & Wetherell, 1987), donors prefer to support charities that align with their social groups in meaningful ways. Chapter 3 goes on to present thematic analyses of responses to the question of why donors support their favorite charity (N = 1,849 from 117 countries). Results show a self/other dichotomy in donor motivation: donors are more likely to reference the self when explaining giving to religious and research charities, but are more likely to reference the other (i.e., beneficiary) when explaining giving to social service, animal, or international charities. In combination, Chapters 4 and 5 demonstrate that social contexts affect charitable responses, in part by changing the perceived relations between donors and beneficiaries. Chapter 4 presents one survey (N = 189) and one experiment (N = 290) that show how government policy on foreign aid affects private giving by changing perceptions of national giving norms. Chapter 5 presents two experiments (combined N = 440) that demonstrate how political advocacy can affect charitable giving by changing donor emotions, perceptions of efficacy, and identification with beneficiaries. Chapter 6 highlights the importance of also considering fundraisers when studying charitable giving. Mediation analyses from two samples of peer-to-peer fundraisers (combined N = 1,647) show that when fundraisers identify more with their nominated charity they take more actions to raise money and that, in turn, results in more funds raised. In particular, results show that actions which make the fundraiser more salient (e.g., adding photos, sharing personal motivations) are most effective. Chapter 7 draws together evidence from my program of research and more than 300 articles from the interdisciplinary literature to generate a new mode...

show abstract

Socio‐psychological barriers preventing people from helping in times of crisis: A scoping review

Kossowska,

Szwed,

Czernatowicz‐Kukuczka

et al. 2024

Community & Applied Soc Psy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A robust field of research has elucidated when and why people are willing to offer help in times of crisis. Yet helping behaviour does not always occur when needed, and the absence of helping during crisis is less well studied. By broadly defining a crisis as an extremely difficult, disruptive and dangerous situation, which may result in possible harm to individuals, groups and societies, this article reviews research focused on the following general question: What factors (psychological, sociological, economic and legal) prevent people from helping others in times of collective crisis? The present work (a) integrates the helping literature, (b) presents new theoretical and empirical perspectives on novel findings concerning failures to help during crises, and (c) suggests recommendations that will enable professionals involved in emergency management to support the public in developing their own capacity to manage and overcome crises. Please refer to the Supplementary Material section to find this article's Community and Social Impact Statement.

show abstract

Intergroup helping relations

Cited by 25 publications

References 43 publications

Future time perspective and interpersonal empathy: Implications for preferring autonomy‐ versus dependency‐oriented helping

Future time perspective and interpersonal empathy: Implications for preferring autonomy‐ versus dependency‐oriented helping

Toward a triadic understanding of charitable giving: how donors, beneficiaries, fundraisers, and social contexts influence donation decisions

Socio‐psychological barriers preventing people from helping in times of crisis: A scoping review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About