Non-Indigenous Canadians' Post-Colonial Ideologies, Allyship and Collective Guilt Predict Support for Reconciliation, Collective Action and Political Tolerance
{"title":"Non-Indigenous Canadians' Post-Colonial Ideologies, Allyship and Collective Guilt Predict Support for Reconciliation, Collective Action and Political Tolerance","authors":"Jaiden Herkimer, Becky Choma, Leen Nasser","doi":"10.1002/casp.70043","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Since the release of the Canadian Truth and Reconciliation Commission's (2015) report and their 94 Calls to Action, there has been a push to advance truth and reconciliation with Indigenous peoples in Canada. Much of the heavy lifting has been done by Indigenous peoples; but to comprehensively redress injustices there is a need for non-Indigenous support. In two studies with non-Indigenous Canadians (<i>n</i> = 355; <i>n</i> = 341), we investigated post-colonial ideologies (historical negation, symbolic exclusion), ally/supporter identity and collective guilt as predictors of support for reconciliation and Indigenous collective action movements, and political tolerance of Indigenous peoples. Consistent with hypotheses, higher post-colonial ideologies, lower ally/supporter identification and lower collective guilt related to less support and less political tolerance. Collective guilt emerged as a mediator for support for reconciliation and Indigenous collective action (except for symbolic exclusion in Study 1); but it moderated the relations for political tolerance. Collective guilt also moderated relations between symbolic exclusion and ally/supporter identity with support for reconciliation in Study 1. Future directions for advancing understanding of post-colonial ideologies and possible applied interventions aimed at improving intergroup relations are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":47850,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology","volume":"35 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/casp.70043","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/casp.70043","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Since the release of the Canadian Truth and Reconciliation Commission's (2015) report and their 94 Calls to Action, there has been a push to advance truth and reconciliation with Indigenous peoples in Canada. Much of the heavy lifting has been done by Indigenous peoples; but to comprehensively redress injustices there is a need for non-Indigenous support. In two studies with non-Indigenous Canadians (n = 355; n = 341), we investigated post-colonial ideologies (historical negation, symbolic exclusion), ally/supporter identity and collective guilt as predictors of support for reconciliation and Indigenous collective action movements, and political tolerance of Indigenous peoples. Consistent with hypotheses, higher post-colonial ideologies, lower ally/supporter identification and lower collective guilt related to less support and less political tolerance. Collective guilt emerged as a mediator for support for reconciliation and Indigenous collective action (except for symbolic exclusion in Study 1); but it moderated the relations for political tolerance. Collective guilt also moderated relations between symbolic exclusion and ally/supporter identity with support for reconciliation in Study 1. Future directions for advancing understanding of post-colonial ideologies and possible applied interventions aimed at improving intergroup relations are discussed.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology publishes papers regarding social behaviour in relation to community problems and strengths. The journal is international in scope, reflecting the common concerns of scholars and community practitioners in Europe and worldwide.