Pub Date : 2021-08-23DOI: 10.1080/10463283.2021.1963590
C. Sassenrath, Svenja Diefenbacher, Stefan Pfattheicher, J. Keller
ABSTRACT Global challenges such as the COVID-19 pandemic or the impending climate change require each and every one of us to perform long-term self-restrictive behaviours, implying personal costs, for the sake of vulnerable others and future generations. We argue that empathy – conceptualised as other-oriented moral emotional process – can impact how we think, feel and act towards others in times of such disruptive global developments. Our research highlights how and under which circumstances empathy fosters solidarity with others in need. We review our findings which corroborate empathy’s potential in directly changing health-relevant behaviour (such as hand hygiene behaviour or adherence to COVID-19 pre-emptive measures) and as well as pro-environmental actions, which serve to protect others’ well-being through self-discipline and self-restriction. Furthermore, we also review and discuss research which indicates potential boundary conditions of empathy-induced prosocial responses to the plight of vulnerable individuals.
{"title":"The potential and limitations of empathy in changing health-relevant affect, cognition and behaviour","authors":"C. Sassenrath, Svenja Diefenbacher, Stefan Pfattheicher, J. Keller","doi":"10.1080/10463283.2021.1963590","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2021.1963590","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Global challenges such as the COVID-19 pandemic or the impending climate change require each and every one of us to perform long-term self-restrictive behaviours, implying personal costs, for the sake of vulnerable others and future generations. We argue that empathy – conceptualised as other-oriented moral emotional process – can impact how we think, feel and act towards others in times of such disruptive global developments. Our research highlights how and under which circumstances empathy fosters solidarity with others in need. We review our findings which corroborate empathy’s potential in directly changing health-relevant behaviour (such as hand hygiene behaviour or adherence to COVID-19 pre-emptive measures) and as well as pro-environmental actions, which serve to protect others’ well-being through self-discipline and self-restriction. Furthermore, we also review and discuss research which indicates potential boundary conditions of empathy-induced prosocial responses to the plight of vulnerable individuals.","PeriodicalId":47582,"journal":{"name":"European Review of Social Psychology","volume":"33 1","pages":"255 - 288"},"PeriodicalIF":7.2,"publicationDate":"2021-08-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46302568","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-08-23DOI: 10.1080/10463283.2021.1959125
J. Hüffmeier, Guido Hertel, Ann-Kathrin Torka, Christoph Nohe, Stefan Krumm
ABSTRACT Although group work has the potential to both reduce and increase the effort expenditure of its members, effort losses (i.e., reduced effort in group- versus individual work) have long been perceived as (nearly) inevitable in Social Psychology. This notion was elicited, accompanied, and bolstered by (i) pessimistic theorising on group productivity, and (ii) the primary use of laboratory experiments to study effort expenditure in groups. In this contribution, we adopt a more optimistic theoretical perspective. We review a series of consecutive field and vignette studies showing that individuals often work harder in groups than alone (i.e., effort gains in groups). We show that effort gains in groups are robust and can be reliably observed under various theoretically derived conditions. We also illustrate that effort gains in groups cannot be explained by various alternative explanations, and illuminate underlying mechanisms and moderators of effort gains in groups in field settings. We conclude our review by elaborating on the relevance of our findings for current theorising, the motivating design of group work, and new directions in the study of effort expenditure during group work.
{"title":"In field settings group members (often) show effort gains instead of social loafing","authors":"J. Hüffmeier, Guido Hertel, Ann-Kathrin Torka, Christoph Nohe, Stefan Krumm","doi":"10.1080/10463283.2021.1959125","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2021.1959125","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Although group work has the potential to both reduce and increase the effort expenditure of its members, effort losses (i.e., reduced effort in group- versus individual work) have long been perceived as (nearly) inevitable in Social Psychology. This notion was elicited, accompanied, and bolstered by (i) pessimistic theorising on group productivity, and (ii) the primary use of laboratory experiments to study effort expenditure in groups. In this contribution, we adopt a more optimistic theoretical perspective. We review a series of consecutive field and vignette studies showing that individuals often work harder in groups than alone (i.e., effort gains in groups). We show that effort gains in groups are robust and can be reliably observed under various theoretically derived conditions. We also illustrate that effort gains in groups cannot be explained by various alternative explanations, and illuminate underlying mechanisms and moderators of effort gains in groups in field settings. We conclude our review by elaborating on the relevance of our findings for current theorising, the motivating design of group work, and new directions in the study of effort expenditure during group work.","PeriodicalId":47582,"journal":{"name":"European Review of Social Psychology","volume":"33 1","pages":"131 - 170"},"PeriodicalIF":7.2,"publicationDate":"2021-08-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48713904","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-08-21DOI: 10.1080/10463283.2021.1955458
Margaux N. A. Wienk, N. Buttrick, S. Oishi
ABSTRACT As economic inequality continues to rise, there is increased concern about both the consequences of inequality and what can be done to reverse this trend. In the present paper, we review the social psychology of economic inequality and redistribution, focusing on their effects on subjective well-being. We address who is affected by inequality and redistribution, what psychological processes link inequality and redistribution to well-being, and how (incorrect) beliefs about redistribution may underlie opposition. Although redistribution has been shown to promote well-being, which policies are effective in promoting well-being remains unclear. We also highlight current limitations, namely, limited understanding of the underlying psychological mechanisms, overlooking the multidimensionality of redistribution, culture and country-specific effects, and a more intersectional approach to who is affected by inequality. Taken together, initial steps have been taken to understand how policy can be used to promote a happy society, yet many questions remain.
{"title":"The social psychology of economic inequality, redistribution, and subjective well-being","authors":"Margaux N. A. Wienk, N. Buttrick, S. Oishi","doi":"10.1080/10463283.2021.1955458","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2021.1955458","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT As economic inequality continues to rise, there is increased concern about both the consequences of inequality and what can be done to reverse this trend. In the present paper, we review the social psychology of economic inequality and redistribution, focusing on their effects on subjective well-being. We address who is affected by inequality and redistribution, what psychological processes link inequality and redistribution to well-being, and how (incorrect) beliefs about redistribution may underlie opposition. Although redistribution has been shown to promote well-being, which policies are effective in promoting well-being remains unclear. We also highlight current limitations, namely, limited understanding of the underlying psychological mechanisms, overlooking the multidimensionality of redistribution, culture and country-specific effects, and a more intersectional approach to who is affected by inequality. Taken together, initial steps have been taken to understand how policy can be used to promote a happy society, yet many questions remain.","PeriodicalId":47582,"journal":{"name":"European Review of Social Psychology","volume":"33 1","pages":"45 - 80"},"PeriodicalIF":7.2,"publicationDate":"2021-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43685760","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-08-09DOI: 10.1080/10463283.2021.1956778
C. Baldissarri, L. Andrighetto, C. Volpato
ABSTRACT Objectification refers to the perception and treatment of human beings as mere objects. Although this dehumanizing process has deeply permeated the domain of work throughout history, social psychology researchers have only recently begun to empirically investigate it. Here, we review the recent literature that analysed working objectification by considering its two main facets: objectification (when workers are objectified by others) and self-objectification (when workers objectify themselves). First, we theoretically define the construct of working objectification, disentangling it from related constructs and reviewing the research on motivational and cognitive processes underpinning workers’ objectification. Then, we focus on the workers’ perspective and systematise the research on the consequences of the metaperception of being objectified. Finally, we focus on a series of experimental and field studies that analyse the antecedents and consequences of workers’ self-objectification. We conclude by discussing future directions and highlighting the theoretical and practical contributions of this line of research.
{"title":"The longstanding view of workers as objects: antecedents and consequences of working objectification","authors":"C. Baldissarri, L. Andrighetto, C. Volpato","doi":"10.1080/10463283.2021.1956778","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2021.1956778","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Objectification refers to the perception and treatment of human beings as mere objects. Although this dehumanizing process has deeply permeated the domain of work throughout history, social psychology researchers have only recently begun to empirically investigate it. Here, we review the recent literature that analysed working objectification by considering its two main facets: objectification (when workers are objectified by others) and self-objectification (when workers objectify themselves). First, we theoretically define the construct of working objectification, disentangling it from related constructs and reviewing the research on motivational and cognitive processes underpinning workers’ objectification. Then, we focus on the workers’ perspective and systematise the research on the consequences of the metaperception of being objectified. Finally, we focus on a series of experimental and field studies that analyse the antecedents and consequences of workers’ self-objectification. We conclude by discussing future directions and highlighting the theoretical and practical contributions of this line of research.","PeriodicalId":47582,"journal":{"name":"European Review of Social Psychology","volume":"33 1","pages":"81 - 130"},"PeriodicalIF":7.2,"publicationDate":"2021-08-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45013277","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-27DOI: 10.1080/10463283.2021.1954379
Arnold K. Ho, Nour S. Kteily
ABSTRACT Many societies today are organised as race-based social hierarchies, with clear boundaries between racial groups at the top versus bottom. The growth of multiracial populations has been heralded as holding the potential to blur existing group boundaries. But whether multiracial people do blur boundaries depends critically on how monoracial perceivers categorise them. We review our research programme on how monoracial perceivers’ categorisation of multiracials depends on sociopolitical motives. We present the Sociopolitical Motive × Intergroup Threat Model of Racial Categorisation, which describes how sociopolitical motives interact with specific threats to drive multiracial categorisation, and how this depends on perceivers’ group position in the racial status hierarchy. Our empirical work is based on the U.S. context, but we discuss how our research, grounded in theories of intergroup relations that have been tested cross-culturally – social dominance, system justification, authoritarianism, and social identity theories – may apply more broadly.
{"title":"Monoracial perceivers’ sociopolitical motives and their inclusion versus exclusion of multiracial people","authors":"Arnold K. Ho, Nour S. Kteily","doi":"10.1080/10463283.2021.1954379","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2021.1954379","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Many societies today are organised as race-based social hierarchies, with clear boundaries between racial groups at the top versus bottom. The growth of multiracial populations has been heralded as holding the potential to blur existing group boundaries. But whether multiracial people do blur boundaries depends critically on how monoracial perceivers categorise them. We review our research programme on how monoracial perceivers’ categorisation of multiracials depends on sociopolitical motives. We present the Sociopolitical Motive × Intergroup Threat Model of Racial Categorisation, which describes how sociopolitical motives interact with specific threats to drive multiracial categorisation, and how this depends on perceivers’ group position in the racial status hierarchy. Our empirical work is based on the U.S. context, but we discuss how our research, grounded in theories of intergroup relations that have been tested cross-culturally – social dominance, system justification, authoritarianism, and social identity theories – may apply more broadly.","PeriodicalId":47582,"journal":{"name":"European Review of Social Psychology","volume":"81 11","pages":"1 - 44"},"PeriodicalIF":7.2,"publicationDate":"2021-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10463283.2021.1954379","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41277838","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-02-22DOI: 10.1080/10463283.2021.1876983
S. Lewandowsky, S. van der Linden
ABSTRACT There has been increasing concern with the growing infusion of misinformation, or “fake news”, into public discourse and politics in many western democracies. Our article first briefly reviews the current state of the literature on conventional countermeasures to misinformation. We then explore proactive measures to prevent misinformation from finding traction in the first place that is based on the psychological theory of “inoculation”. Inoculation rests on the idea that if people are forewarned that they might be misinformed and are exposed to weakened examples of the ways in which they might be misled, they will become more immune to misinformation. We review a number of techniques that can boost people’s resilience to misinformation, ranging from general warnings to more specific instructions about misleading (rhetorical) techniques. We show that based on the available evidence, inoculation appears to be a promising avenue to help protect people from misinformation and “fake news”.
{"title":"Countering Misinformation and Fake News Through Inoculation and Prebunking","authors":"S. Lewandowsky, S. van der Linden","doi":"10.1080/10463283.2021.1876983","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2021.1876983","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT There has been increasing concern with the growing infusion of misinformation, or “fake news”, into public discourse and politics in many western democracies. Our article first briefly reviews the current state of the literature on conventional countermeasures to misinformation. We then explore proactive measures to prevent misinformation from finding traction in the first place that is based on the psychological theory of “inoculation”. Inoculation rests on the idea that if people are forewarned that they might be misinformed and are exposed to weakened examples of the ways in which they might be misled, they will become more immune to misinformation. We review a number of techniques that can boost people’s resilience to misinformation, ranging from general warnings to more specific instructions about misleading (rhetorical) techniques. We show that based on the available evidence, inoculation appears to be a promising avenue to help protect people from misinformation and “fake news”.","PeriodicalId":47582,"journal":{"name":"European Review of Social Psychology","volume":"32 1","pages":"348 - 384"},"PeriodicalIF":7.2,"publicationDate":"2021-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10463283.2021.1876983","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44818187","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-02-07DOI: 10.1080/10463283.2020.1820699
E. P. Lloyd, K. Hugenberg
ABSTRACT In the present work, we review a growing programme of research identifying deficits in race-based interpersonal sensitivity, specifically emotion detection, as a route to creating pitfalls in interracial interactions and generating race-based disparities. Most existing research examining race disparities takes a bias perspective – focusing on how stereotypes and prejudice can make judgements more positive or negative as a mechanism underlying race-based inequality. We review this literature, while also providing evidence that differential sensitivity – more accurately reading cues and signals of ingroup and majority group members than outgroup and minority group members – can also serve as a mechanism underlying race-based discrimination. We propose that an integrated perspective encompassing sensitivity and response bias as routes to intergroup inequality may offer researchers a novel approach to existing intergroup questions as well as a generative perspective on intergroup research programmes.
{"title":"Beyond bias: response bias and interpersonal (in)sensitivity as a contributors to race disparities","authors":"E. P. Lloyd, K. Hugenberg","doi":"10.1080/10463283.2020.1820699","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2020.1820699","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In the present work, we review a growing programme of research identifying deficits in race-based interpersonal sensitivity, specifically emotion detection, as a route to creating pitfalls in interracial interactions and generating race-based disparities. Most existing research examining race disparities takes a bias perspective – focusing on how stereotypes and prejudice can make judgements more positive or negative as a mechanism underlying race-based inequality. We review this literature, while also providing evidence that differential sensitivity – more accurately reading cues and signals of ingroup and majority group members than outgroup and minority group members – can also serve as a mechanism underlying race-based discrimination. We propose that an integrated perspective encompassing sensitivity and response bias as routes to intergroup inequality may offer researchers a novel approach to existing intergroup questions as well as a generative perspective on intergroup research programmes.","PeriodicalId":47582,"journal":{"name":"European Review of Social Psychology","volume":"32 1","pages":"201 - 234"},"PeriodicalIF":7.2,"publicationDate":"2021-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10463283.2020.1820699","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48571339","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-18DOI: 10.1080/10463283.2020.1857082
Frank Martela, N. Hankonen, R. Ryan, M. Vansteenkiste
ABSTRACT An effective response to crises like the COVID-19 pandemic is dependent on the public voluntarily adhering to governmental rules and guidelines. How the guidelines are communicated can significantly affect whether people will experience a sense of self-initiation and volition, protecting compliance from eroding. From the perspective of Self-Determination Theory, a broad theory on human motivation and its interpersonal determinants, effective communication involves the delicate combination of providing rules and structure in a caring and autonomy-supportive way. Research in applied domains from public messaging to education and health has shown that when social agents set limits in more autonomy-supportive, caring, and competence-fostering ways, it predicts autonomous forms of compliance, which in turn predict greater adherence and long-term persistence. Building on SDT, integrated with insights from social identity theory, we derive a practice-focused checklist with key communication guidelines to foster voluntary compliance in national crises such as the prevention of COVID-19 spread.
{"title":"Motivating voluntary compliance to behavioural restrictions: Self-determination theory–based checklist of principles for COVID-19 and other emergency communications","authors":"Frank Martela, N. Hankonen, R. Ryan, M. Vansteenkiste","doi":"10.1080/10463283.2020.1857082","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2020.1857082","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT An effective response to crises like the COVID-19 pandemic is dependent on the public voluntarily adhering to governmental rules and guidelines. How the guidelines are communicated can significantly affect whether people will experience a sense of self-initiation and volition, protecting compliance from eroding. From the perspective of Self-Determination Theory, a broad theory on human motivation and its interpersonal determinants, effective communication involves the delicate combination of providing rules and structure in a caring and autonomy-supportive way. Research in applied domains from public messaging to education and health has shown that when social agents set limits in more autonomy-supportive, caring, and competence-fostering ways, it predicts autonomous forms of compliance, which in turn predict greater adherence and long-term persistence. Building on SDT, integrated with insights from social identity theory, we derive a practice-focused checklist with key communication guidelines to foster voluntary compliance in national crises such as the prevention of COVID-19 spread.","PeriodicalId":47582,"journal":{"name":"European Review of Social Psychology","volume":"32 1","pages":"305 - 347"},"PeriodicalIF":7.2,"publicationDate":"2021-01-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10463283.2020.1857082","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47532689","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-02DOI: 10.1080/10463283.2020.1852699
J. Thürmer, F. Wieber, P. Gollwitzer
ABSTRACT Mastering global challenges such as the 2020 Coronavirus pandemic requires implementing effective responses at various social levels. Leadership teams (governmental, industrial) need to integrate available information to introduce effective regulation and update their decisions as new information becomes available. Groups (families, peers, teams) need to act persistently, even when these actions oppose members’ individual short-term interests. Moreover, individuals need to stay calm and act diligently, while dealing with emotions of threat and resisting counterproductive social influence. Our research programme on implementation intentions at social levels suggests that collective if-then plans facilitate goal attainment for teams, groups, and individuals in social contexts. We therefore analyse how if-then planning can help master global human challenges such as the 2020 Coronavirus pandemic.
{"title":"How can we master the 2020 Coronavirus pandemic? The role of planning at social levels","authors":"J. Thürmer, F. Wieber, P. Gollwitzer","doi":"10.1080/10463283.2020.1852699","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2020.1852699","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Mastering global challenges such as the 2020 Coronavirus pandemic requires implementing effective responses at various social levels. Leadership teams (governmental, industrial) need to integrate available information to introduce effective regulation and update their decisions as new information becomes available. Groups (families, peers, teams) need to act persistently, even when these actions oppose members’ individual short-term interests. Moreover, individuals need to stay calm and act diligently, while dealing with emotions of threat and resisting counterproductive social influence. Our research programme on implementation intentions at social levels suggests that collective if-then plans facilitate goal attainment for teams, groups, and individuals in social contexts. We therefore analyse how if-then planning can help master global human challenges such as the 2020 Coronavirus pandemic.","PeriodicalId":47582,"journal":{"name":"European Review of Social Psychology","volume":"32 1","pages":"1 - 46"},"PeriodicalIF":7.2,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10463283.2020.1852699","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44535431","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-12-31DOI: 10.1080/10463283.2020.1853377
Mathias Kauff, F. Asbrock, Katharina Schmid
ABSTRACT Modern societies and organisations are becoming increasingly diverse, leading many to argue that diversity should be valued because it can benefit teams, organisations and societies more widely. Considerable attention in both organisational and social psychological research has been devoted to so-called pro-diversity beliefs (i.e. the idea that diversity has an instrumental value to groups), and the consequences of these for various outcomes. In this paper, we focus on the role and relevance of PDBs in understanding intergroup relations, and review research on antecedents, consequences, and correlates thereof. We introduce the concept of PDBs more generally before drawing a more directed focus on interethnic relations, thereby contextualising PDBs within theorising on interethnic ideologies and approaches to diversity more generally. Moreover, we delineate potential strategies to facilitate PDBs but also outline boundary conditions, before ending with a discussion of recommendations concerning the practical implications of research on PDBs.
{"title":"Pro-diversity beliefs and intergroup relations","authors":"Mathias Kauff, F. Asbrock, Katharina Schmid","doi":"10.1080/10463283.2020.1853377","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2020.1853377","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Modern societies and organisations are becoming increasingly diverse, leading many to argue that diversity should be valued because it can benefit teams, organisations and societies more widely. Considerable attention in both organisational and social psychological research has been devoted to so-called pro-diversity beliefs (i.e. the idea that diversity has an instrumental value to groups), and the consequences of these for various outcomes. In this paper, we focus on the role and relevance of PDBs in understanding intergroup relations, and review research on antecedents, consequences, and correlates thereof. We introduce the concept of PDBs more generally before drawing a more directed focus on interethnic relations, thereby contextualising PDBs within theorising on interethnic ideologies and approaches to diversity more generally. Moreover, we delineate potential strategies to facilitate PDBs but also outline boundary conditions, before ending with a discussion of recommendations concerning the practical implications of research on PDBs.","PeriodicalId":47582,"journal":{"name":"European Review of Social Psychology","volume":"32 1","pages":"269 - 304"},"PeriodicalIF":7.2,"publicationDate":"2020-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10463283.2020.1853377","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46902854","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：