The opposite roles of injustice and cruelty in the internalization of a devaluation: The humiliation paradox revisited

IF 3.2 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL British Journal of Social Psychology Pub Date : 2024-11-11 DOI:10.1111/bjso.12823
Jose A. Gonzalez‐Puerto, Saulo Fernández
{"title":"The opposite roles of injustice and cruelty in the internalization of a devaluation: The humiliation paradox revisited","authors":"Jose A. Gonzalez‐Puerto, Saulo Fernández","doi":"10.1111/bjso.12823","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Cruelty and its link to injustice in contexts of humiliation have not received to date due attention from experimental psychosocial research. Aiming at filling this gap, this paper presents three studies with increasing degrees of experimental control (<jats:italic>N</jats:italic><jats:sub>total</jats:sub> = 1098) that show a dual opponent‐process response to being targeted by potentially humiliating actions: while targets appraising more <jats:italic>injustice</jats:italic> internalize less the devaluation underlying the humiliation experience (thus partially dissolving the so‐called “paradox of humiliation”, Fernández et al., 2015, <jats:italic>Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin</jats:italic>, 41, 976), targets appraising more <jats:italic>cruelty</jats:italic> internalize more a devalued self‐view and feel more humiliated. The fine balance between these two closely connected but distinct appraisals is key to understand the internal/subjective experience of targets: seeing themselves mainly as victims of injustice or cruelty will prevent or favour, respectively, their internalization of the devaluation and their feeling humiliated. This opposite pattern also impacts victims' reaction: Both appraisals relate to aggressive responses via anger but while appraising cruelty also paradoxically leads to powerless inertia, appraising injustice (including importantly the injustice of cruelty itself) leads to less powerlessness and more assertive agency. The theoretical and applied implications of approaching the victims of humiliation as victims of both an injustice and a cruelty are discussed.","PeriodicalId":48304,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Social Psychology","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Social Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12823","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Cruelty and its link to injustice in contexts of humiliation have not received to date due attention from experimental psychosocial research. Aiming at filling this gap, this paper presents three studies with increasing degrees of experimental control (Ntotal = 1098) that show a dual opponent‐process response to being targeted by potentially humiliating actions: while targets appraising more injustice internalize less the devaluation underlying the humiliation experience (thus partially dissolving the so‐called “paradox of humiliation”, Fernández et al., 2015, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41, 976), targets appraising more cruelty internalize more a devalued self‐view and feel more humiliated. The fine balance between these two closely connected but distinct appraisals is key to understand the internal/subjective experience of targets: seeing themselves mainly as victims of injustice or cruelty will prevent or favour, respectively, their internalization of the devaluation and their feeling humiliated. This opposite pattern also impacts victims' reaction: Both appraisals relate to aggressive responses via anger but while appraising cruelty also paradoxically leads to powerless inertia, appraising injustice (including importantly the injustice of cruelty itself) leads to less powerlessness and more assertive agency. The theoretical and applied implications of approaching the victims of humiliation as victims of both an injustice and a cruelty are discussed.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
不公正和残忍在贬低的内在化中扮演着相反的角色:羞辱悖论再探
迄今为止,社会心理学实验研究尚未对羞辱背景下的残忍及其与不公正之间的联系给予应有的关注。为了填补这一空白,本文介绍了三项实验控制程度越来越高的研究(总人数 = 1098 人),这些研究显示了被潜在羞辱行为盯上后的双重对手过程反应:当评价不公正程度较高的目标内化羞辱体验背后的贬值程度较低时(从而部分化解了所谓的 "羞辱悖论",Fernández 等人,2015 年,《人格与社会心理学通报》,41, 976),评价不公正程度较高的目标内化羞辱体验背后的贬值程度较高时(从而部分化解了所谓的 "羞辱悖论"、2015, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41, 976),而评价更残酷的目标则更多地内化了贬低自我的观点,并感到更多羞辱。这两种紧密相连但又截然不同的评价之间的微妙平衡,是理解目标的内部/主观体验的关键:将自己主要视为不公正或残忍行为的受害者,将分别阻止或有利于他们将贬低和羞辱感内化。这种相反的模式也会影响受害者的反应:这两种评价都与通过愤怒做出的攻击性反应有关,但自相矛盾的是,对残忍的评价也会导致无力的惰性,而对不公正的评价(重要的是包括对残忍本身的不公正)则会导致更少的无力感和更自信的能动性。本文讨论了将羞辱的受害者同时视为不公正和残忍行为的受害者的理论和应用意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.50
自引率
7.40%
发文量
85
期刊介绍: The British Journal of Social Psychology publishes work from scholars based in all parts of the world, and manuscripts that present data on a wide range of populations inside and outside the UK. It publishes original papers in all areas of social psychology including: • social cognition • attitudes • group processes • social influence • intergroup relations • self and identity • nonverbal communication • social psychological aspects of personality, affect and emotion • language and discourse Submissions addressing these topics from a variety of approaches and methods, both quantitative and qualitative are welcomed. We publish papers of the following kinds: • empirical papers that address theoretical issues; • theoretical papers, including analyses of existing social psychological theories and presentations of theoretical innovations, extensions, or integrations; • review papers that provide an evaluation of work within a given area of social psychology and that present proposals for further research in that area; • methodological papers concerning issues that are particularly relevant to a wide range of social psychologists; • an invited agenda article as the first article in the first part of every volume. The editorial team aims to handle papers as efficiently as possible. In 2016, papers were triaged within less than a week, and the average turnaround time from receipt of the manuscript to first decision sent back to the authors was 47 days.
期刊最新文献
Memorials and collective memory: A text analysis of online reviews. Registered report: Cognitive ability, but not cognitive reflection, predicts expressing greater political animosity and favouritism. From imagination to activism: Cognitive alternatives motivate commitment to activism through identification with social movements and collective efficacy Between east and west, between past and future: The effects of exclusive historical victimhood on geopolitical attitudes in Hungary and Serbia. The opposite roles of injustice and cruelty in the internalization of a devaluation: The humiliation paradox revisited
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1