Your needs or mine? The role of allies' needs and their perceptions of disadvantaged groups' needs in motivating solidarity-based actions

IF 3.2 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL British Journal of Social Psychology Pub Date : 2025-01-22 DOI:10.1111/bjso.12855
Ahmed Faruk Sağlamöz, Maja Kutlaca, Ana C. Leite
{"title":"Your needs or mine? The role of allies' needs and their perceptions of disadvantaged groups' needs in motivating solidarity-based actions","authors":"Ahmed Faruk Sağlamöz,&nbsp;Maja Kutlaca,&nbsp;Ana C. Leite","doi":"10.1111/bjso.12855","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>We propose a new motivational model that integrates self-determination theory (with a focus on basic needs) with social-psychological research on allyship and solidarity to better understand when and why allies may engage in different actions to address social injustice. We theorize that normative (e.g., donations and protesting) and non-normative (e.g., blocking highways and disrupting events) solidarity-based actions are motivated by allies' basic needs (measured at the individual and group levels) as well as their perception of disadvantaged groups' basic needs (measured at the individual and group levels). We tested the model in two cross-sectional studies using two different contexts: English citizens' solidarity (i.e., allies from a high-status group) with Ukrainian refugees and students' solidarity (i.e., allies from a low-status group) with the striking university employees in the United Kingdom (<i>N</i><sub>total</sub> = 1232). In both studies, we found that the more allies' needs were satisfied, the more likely they were to engage in normative solidarity actions. In contrast, intentions to engage in non-normative solidarity actions were predicted by frustration of allies' needs. Perceptions of disadvantaged group's needs predicted engagement in both normative and non-normative actions. Notably, high-status allies' solidarity was driven by both individual and group-level needs, whilst low-status allies were only motivated by group-level needs.</p>","PeriodicalId":48304,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Social Psychology","volume":"64 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/bjso.12855","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Social Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjso.12855","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

We propose a new motivational model that integrates self-determination theory (with a focus on basic needs) with social-psychological research on allyship and solidarity to better understand when and why allies may engage in different actions to address social injustice. We theorize that normative (e.g., donations and protesting) and non-normative (e.g., blocking highways and disrupting events) solidarity-based actions are motivated by allies' basic needs (measured at the individual and group levels) as well as their perception of disadvantaged groups' basic needs (measured at the individual and group levels). We tested the model in two cross-sectional studies using two different contexts: English citizens' solidarity (i.e., allies from a high-status group) with Ukrainian refugees and students' solidarity (i.e., allies from a low-status group) with the striking university employees in the United Kingdom (Ntotal = 1232). In both studies, we found that the more allies' needs were satisfied, the more likely they were to engage in normative solidarity actions. In contrast, intentions to engage in non-normative solidarity actions were predicted by frustration of allies' needs. Perceptions of disadvantaged group's needs predicted engagement in both normative and non-normative actions. Notably, high-status allies' solidarity was driven by both individual and group-level needs, whilst low-status allies were only motivated by group-level needs.

Abstract Image

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
你的需要还是我的?盟友的需求及其对弱势群体需求的认知在激励基于团结的行动中的作用
我们提出了一个新的动机模型,将自我决定理论(关注基本需求)与关于盟友和团结的社会心理学研究相结合,以更好地理解盟友何时以及为什么会采取不同的行动来解决社会不公正问题。我们的理论认为,规范(例如,捐赠和抗议)和非规范(例如,封锁高速公路和破坏事件)基于团结的行动是由盟友的基本需求(在个人和群体层面衡量)以及他们对弱势群体基本需求的感知(在个人和群体层面衡量)驱动的。我们在两个横截面研究中使用两种不同的背景对模型进行了测试:英国公民(即来自高地位群体的盟友)与乌克兰难民的团结,以及学生(即来自低地位群体的盟友)与英国罢工大学员工的团结(Ntotal = 1232)。在这两项研究中,我们都发现,盟友的需求得到满足越多,他们就越有可能参与规范的团结行动。相比之下,参与非规范性团结行动的意图是由对盟友需求的挫败感所预测的。对弱势群体需求的感知预测了规范性和非规范性行为的参与。值得注意的是,高地位盟友的团结受到个人和群体层面需求的驱动,而低地位盟友只受到群体层面需求的驱动。
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
Where and why do women lead? The importance of leadership for private profit versus purpose beyond profit Owners of a conspiratorial heart? Investigating the longitudinal relationship between loneliness and conspiracy beliefs Adoption and social identity loss: Insights from adults adopted through Ireland's mother and baby homes The more positive intergroup contacts you have, the less LGBTQ+ conspiracies beliefs you will report: The role of knowledge, anxiety, and empathy Using social psychology to create inclusive education
×
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