Pub Date : 2024-04-20DOI: 10.1177/13684302241230001
Maya Aloni, Christopher J. Hopwood, Madeline R. Lenhausen, Daniel L. Rosenfeld, Keira O. Mohan
Previous research suggests that people hold both positive and negative stereotypes of vegans, but little is known about the specific content of those stereotypes. In two studies (total N = 2,027), we identified the structure of meat-eaters’ stereotypes of vegans and developed a scale to measure them. Stereotypes of vegans assorted into three positive (compassionate, healthy, and self-disciplined) and three negative (unconventional, condescending, and unhealthy) dimensions. Meat-eaters perceived vegans more positively when they understood their motivations for their diet, were familiar with vegans, and shared their concerns for the environment. In contrast, meat-eaters who perceived vegans more negatively were more conservative, had a strong meat-eating identity, and were highly motivated to eat meat. Whereas most attitudes predicted overall positive and negative evaluations of vegans, some predicted specific stereotypes of vegans. This model and scale provide a foundation for vegan stereotype research and for improving intergroup relations between meat-eaters and vegans.
{"title":"The structure and correlates of vegan stereotypes","authors":"Maya Aloni, Christopher J. Hopwood, Madeline R. Lenhausen, Daniel L. Rosenfeld, Keira O. Mohan","doi":"10.1177/13684302241230001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302241230001","url":null,"abstract":"Previous research suggests that people hold both positive and negative stereotypes of vegans, but little is known about the specific content of those stereotypes. In two studies (total N = 2,027), we identified the structure of meat-eaters’ stereotypes of vegans and developed a scale to measure them. Stereotypes of vegans assorted into three positive (compassionate, healthy, and self-disciplined) and three negative (unconventional, condescending, and unhealthy) dimensions. Meat-eaters perceived vegans more positively when they understood their motivations for their diet, were familiar with vegans, and shared their concerns for the environment. In contrast, meat-eaters who perceived vegans more negatively were more conservative, had a strong meat-eating identity, and were highly motivated to eat meat. Whereas most attitudes predicted overall positive and negative evaluations of vegans, some predicted specific stereotypes of vegans. This model and scale provide a foundation for vegan stereotype research and for improving intergroup relations between meat-eaters and vegans.","PeriodicalId":48099,"journal":{"name":"Group Processes & Intergroup Relations","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.4,"publicationDate":"2024-04-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140627993","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 : 2024-04-17DOI: 10.1177/13684302241248025
{"title":"Corrigendum to “Contributions of group identification and emotional synchrony in understanding collective gatherings: A meta-analysis of 13 studies”","authors":"","doi":"10.1177/13684302241248025","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302241248025","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":48099,"journal":{"name":"Group Processes & Intergroup Relations","volume":"80 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.4,"publicationDate":"2024-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140610042","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 : 2024-04-12DOI: 10.1177/13684302241239860
Hirotaka Imada, Nobuhiro Mifune, Hiroshi Shimizu
According to the theory of bounded generalized reciprocity (BGR), intergroup contexts afford individuals the assumption that indirect reciprocity is bounded by group membership, and this shapes ingroup favouritism in cooperation. The assumption of bounded indirect reciprocity is hypothesized to result in ingroup favouritisms via two pathways: it leads people to behave in ways that earn and maintain a positive reputation in the eyes of ingroup, but not outgroup, members (the reputation management hypothesis), and it leads individuals to expect other ingroup members to be more cooperative than outgroup members (the expectation hypothesis). In other words, BGR offers two parallel psychological explanations for why people display ingroup favouritism. While the latter hypothesis has gained much experimental support, evidence for the former is rather scarce. Here, we report a direct test of both the reputation management hypothesis and the expectation hypothesis using two economic games. Overall, we found support for the expectation hypothesis, but not for the reputation management hypothesis.
{"title":"Psychological mechanisms underlying ingroup favouritism in cooperation: Revisiting the reputation management and expectation hypotheses","authors":"Hirotaka Imada, Nobuhiro Mifune, Hiroshi Shimizu","doi":"10.1177/13684302241239860","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302241239860","url":null,"abstract":"According to the theory of bounded generalized reciprocity (BGR), intergroup contexts afford individuals the assumption that indirect reciprocity is bounded by group membership, and this shapes ingroup favouritism in cooperation. The assumption of bounded indirect reciprocity is hypothesized to result in ingroup favouritisms via two pathways: it leads people to behave in ways that earn and maintain a positive reputation in the eyes of ingroup, but not outgroup, members (the reputation management hypothesis), and it leads individuals to expect other ingroup members to be more cooperative than outgroup members (the expectation hypothesis). In other words, BGR offers two parallel psychological explanations for why people display ingroup favouritism. While the latter hypothesis has gained much experimental support, evidence for the former is rather scarce. Here, we report a direct test of both the reputation management hypothesis and the expectation hypothesis using two economic games. Overall, we found support for the expectation hypothesis, but not for the reputation management hypothesis.","PeriodicalId":48099,"journal":{"name":"Group Processes & Intergroup Relations","volume":"93 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.4,"publicationDate":"2024-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140570431","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 : 2024-04-09DOI: 10.1177/13684302241240684
Wolfgang Stroebe, N. Pontus Leander
This article addresses two questions: (a) why do Americans believe that they need guns to defend themselves and their families and (b) why has the number of Americans who share this belief increased dramatically in recent decades? To address the first question, we describe a model of defensive gun ownership that assumes that Americans’ perceived need of a gun for self-defense is not only determined by their perceived lifetime risk of being assaulted (PLRA), but also by some diffuse belief in a dangerous world (BDW). In attempting to identify the dangerous world feared by high BDW gun owners, we review evidence that gun ownership is often associated with racial prejudice and concerns about groups that are stereotypically associated with safety threats (e.g., Black Americans, illegal immigrants). We identified three environmental changes that might exacerbate social threat perceptions: the proliferation of intergroup threat narratives such as the great replacement theory (that White Americans will be replaced by non-White minorities), the COVID-19 pandemic, and a change in the way the American gun industry advertises their products (praising the quality of their guns to emphasize the usefulness of guns for self-defense).
{"title":"Why Americans increasingly claim to own guns for self-protection: A modern culture of social-psychological threat defense","authors":"Wolfgang Stroebe, N. Pontus Leander","doi":"10.1177/13684302241240684","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302241240684","url":null,"abstract":"This article addresses two questions: (a) why do Americans believe that they need guns to defend themselves and their families and (b) why has the number of Americans who share this belief increased dramatically in recent decades? To address the first question, we describe a model of defensive gun ownership that assumes that Americans’ perceived need of a gun for self-defense is not only determined by their perceived lifetime risk of being assaulted (PLRA), but also by some diffuse belief in a dangerous world (BDW). In attempting to identify the dangerous world feared by high BDW gun owners, we review evidence that gun ownership is often associated with racial prejudice and concerns about groups that are stereotypically associated with safety threats (e.g., Black Americans, illegal immigrants). We identified three environmental changes that might exacerbate social threat perceptions: the proliferation of intergroup threat narratives such as the great replacement theory (that White Americans will be replaced by non-White minorities), the COVID-19 pandemic, and a change in the way the American gun industry advertises their products (praising the quality of their guns to emphasize the usefulness of guns for self-defense).","PeriodicalId":48099,"journal":{"name":"Group Processes & Intergroup Relations","volume":"92 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.4,"publicationDate":"2024-04-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140570114","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 : 2024-04-09DOI: 10.1177/13684302241240688
Kimberly Rios
Whiteness in the US is often conceptualized largely as the absence of a meaningful cultural identity. Research from my own lab suggests that overlooking the nuances inherent in White identity (e.g., differences between ethnic groups) can induce feelings of threat and backlash against multiculturalism among dominant group members. Based on this research, I argue that conceptualizing Whiteness as multifaceted—for example, by acknowledging not only interethnic but also religious and socioeconomic differences—may mitigate dominant group members’ threat perceptions and increase their comfort amidst growing discussions of diversity, equity, and inclusion in institutions and organizations. Further, attending to the complexities of White identity may produce more positive intergroup outcomes, such as reduced racial/ethnic prejudice and greater perceived personal contributions to diversity, and may benefit groups that are classified as “White” on demographic forms but often do not perceive themselves as such (e.g., Middle Eastern and North African Americans, Hispanic/Latino[a] Americans).
{"title":"Harnessing the many facets of White identity to reduce feelings of threat and improve intergroup relations","authors":"Kimberly Rios","doi":"10.1177/13684302241240688","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302241240688","url":null,"abstract":"Whiteness in the US is often conceptualized largely as the absence of a meaningful cultural identity. Research from my own lab suggests that overlooking the nuances inherent in White identity (e.g., differences between ethnic groups) can induce feelings of threat and backlash against multiculturalism among dominant group members. Based on this research, I argue that conceptualizing Whiteness as multifaceted—for example, by acknowledging not only interethnic but also religious and socioeconomic differences—may mitigate dominant group members’ threat perceptions and increase their comfort amidst growing discussions of diversity, equity, and inclusion in institutions and organizations. Further, attending to the complexities of White identity may produce more positive intergroup outcomes, such as reduced racial/ethnic prejudice and greater perceived personal contributions to diversity, and may benefit groups that are classified as “White” on demographic forms but often do not perceive themselves as such (e.g., Middle Eastern and North African Americans, Hispanic/Latino[a] Americans).","PeriodicalId":48099,"journal":{"name":"Group Processes & Intergroup Relations","volume":"24 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.4,"publicationDate":"2024-04-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140570254","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 : 2024-04-08DOI: 10.1177/13684302241240696
Jan-Willem van Prooijen
By assuming that a group of nefarious actors collude to harm a perceiver’s ingroup, conspiracy theories are an intergroup phenomenon. What are the group-oriented motivations underlying belief in conspiracy theories? This contribution proposes that conspiracy theories are associated with both symbolic, identity-based motivations and realistic, harm-based motivations. As symbolic motivations, conspiracy theories help people develop, maintain, and protect a positive social identity. Conspiracy theories can unite people through a shared belief system, provide a basis for favorable intergroup comparison, and enable perceivers to attribute ingroup status threats to external forces beyond their control. As realistic motivations, conspiracy theories prepare people for conflict with other groups. Conspiracy theories transform an abstract sense of distrust into concrete allegations of misconduct. This provides a signal that an outgroup is threatening, mobilizes the ingroup, and promotes a readiness to fight. I discuss the implications of these processes for theory and practice.
{"title":"Group-oriented motivations underlying conspiracy theories","authors":"Jan-Willem van Prooijen","doi":"10.1177/13684302241240696","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302241240696","url":null,"abstract":"By assuming that a group of nefarious actors collude to harm a perceiver’s ingroup, conspiracy theories are an intergroup phenomenon. What are the group-oriented motivations underlying belief in conspiracy theories? This contribution proposes that conspiracy theories are associated with both symbolic, identity-based motivations and realistic, harm-based motivations. As symbolic motivations, conspiracy theories help people develop, maintain, and protect a positive social identity. Conspiracy theories can unite people through a shared belief system, provide a basis for favorable intergroup comparison, and enable perceivers to attribute ingroup status threats to external forces beyond their control. As realistic motivations, conspiracy theories prepare people for conflict with other groups. Conspiracy theories transform an abstract sense of distrust into concrete allegations of misconduct. This provides a signal that an outgroup is threatening, mobilizes the ingroup, and promotes a readiness to fight. I discuss the implications of these processes for theory and practice.","PeriodicalId":48099,"journal":{"name":"Group Processes & Intergroup Relations","volume":"109 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.4,"publicationDate":"2024-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140570247","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 : 2024-03-16DOI: 10.1177/13684302241233505
Maria Iankilevitch, Alison L. Chasteen
Although the number of mixed-race couples is increasing in North America, these couples continue to experience stigma and discrimination, which can have deleterious effects on individuals in these relationships. In three samples, we examined perceivers’ first impressions of targets in mixed-race couples when viewed with their romantic partner versus alone, including their warmth and competence (Sample 1a), global morality (Sample 1b), and specific stereotypic behaviors including likelihood to betray, conform, and be prejudiced (Sample 1c). Partner effects occurred for specific stereotypes relevant for intergroup behaviors such that individuals in mixed-race couples were rated as more likely to betray close others and to be less conforming and less prejudiced than individuals in same-race couples when viewed with their partners. These results suggest that specific stereotypes relevant for intergroup relations are affected by the race of targets’ romantic partners and lay the foundation for understanding the unique challenges faced by members of mixed-race couples.
{"title":"Perceptions of women and men in mixed-race heterosexual relationships","authors":"Maria Iankilevitch, Alison L. Chasteen","doi":"10.1177/13684302241233505","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302241233505","url":null,"abstract":"Although the number of mixed-race couples is increasing in North America, these couples continue to experience stigma and discrimination, which can have deleterious effects on individuals in these relationships. In three samples, we examined perceivers’ first impressions of targets in mixed-race couples when viewed with their romantic partner versus alone, including their warmth and competence (Sample 1a), global morality (Sample 1b), and specific stereotypic behaviors including likelihood to betray, conform, and be prejudiced (Sample 1c). Partner effects occurred for specific stereotypes relevant for intergroup behaviors such that individuals in mixed-race couples were rated as more likely to betray close others and to be less conforming and less prejudiced than individuals in same-race couples when viewed with their partners. These results suggest that specific stereotypes relevant for intergroup relations are affected by the race of targets’ romantic partners and lay the foundation for understanding the unique challenges faced by members of mixed-race couples.","PeriodicalId":48099,"journal":{"name":"Group Processes & Intergroup Relations","volume":"51 6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.4,"publicationDate":"2024-03-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140146359","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 : 2024-03-14DOI: 10.1177/13684302231208382
Elena Zubielevitch, Nicole Satherley, Chris G. Sibley, Danny Osborne
Although social dominance orientation (SDO) and right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) often predict similar outcomes, their respective motivations to reinforce inequality and mitigate threat are ostensibly incompatible with attempts to manage a pandemic. We test the potential countervailing associations SDO and RWA have with COVID-19 attitudes in a nationwide random sample of New Zealand adults ( N = 31,025). As hypothesized, SDO and RWA had countervailing associations with most COVID-19 attitudes, including believing the health risks were exaggerated; trust in and satisfaction with the government; compliance with various health directives; and getting information from mainstream media and the government. Nevertheless, SDO and RWA both correlated positively with getting information from social media, believing COVID-19 was laboratory-created, worrying about catching the virus, confidence in recovering from COVID-19, and ruminating about the pandemic. Collectively, these results suggest that people who prefer hierarchies may oppose COVID-19 containment efforts, whereas authoritarians may support such measures.
{"title":"Social dominance and authoritarianism have mostly countervailing associations with attitudes about COVID-19 and its management","authors":"Elena Zubielevitch, Nicole Satherley, Chris G. Sibley, Danny Osborne","doi":"10.1177/13684302231208382","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302231208382","url":null,"abstract":"Although social dominance orientation (SDO) and right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) often predict similar outcomes, their respective motivations to reinforce inequality and mitigate threat are ostensibly incompatible with attempts to manage a pandemic. We test the potential countervailing associations SDO and RWA have with COVID-19 attitudes in a nationwide random sample of New Zealand adults ( N = 31,025). As hypothesized, SDO and RWA had countervailing associations with most COVID-19 attitudes, including believing the health risks were exaggerated; trust in and satisfaction with the government; compliance with various health directives; and getting information from mainstream media and the government. Nevertheless, SDO and RWA both correlated positively with getting information from social media, believing COVID-19 was laboratory-created, worrying about catching the virus, confidence in recovering from COVID-19, and ruminating about the pandemic. Collectively, these results suggest that people who prefer hierarchies may oppose COVID-19 containment efforts, whereas authoritarians may support such measures.","PeriodicalId":48099,"journal":{"name":"Group Processes & Intergroup Relations","volume":"29 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.4,"publicationDate":"2024-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140146354","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 : 2024-02-23DOI: 10.1177/13684302241226924
J. Lukas Thürmer
Objective:When task groups depend on all members’ contributions, one poor performer can threaten the entire group’s goal attainment. The model of pro-group intent (M-PGI) stipulates that group responses to such poor performers are primarily determined by the group’s assessment of that person’s willingness to help the group ( attributed pro-group intent). Despite supportive evidence, past research has neglected whether model predictions hold under conditions more representative of group life. The current study thus tests the M-PGI in (a) personal interaction, (b) settings beyond the work context, and (c) repeated decisions.Method:The current paper reports two experiments using repeated decision scenarios across a range of group situations (i.e., within-participant designs). The main experiment, moreover, manipulated whether two group members discussed their response to a described poor performer (interacting dyads) or decided individually (nominal dyads; between-participant factor).Results:Results provide consistent evidence for the M-PGI across contexts. Process analyses provide some evidence that model effects were stronger in interacting (vs. nominal) dyads.Conclusions:Interacting groups focus on poor performers’ intent when determining their responses. I discuss the implications of the M-PGI for group dynamics theory and research, as well as a range of applied fields.
{"title":"Testing the boundaries of the model of pro-group intent: Does group interaction influence reaction to poor performers?","authors":"J. Lukas Thürmer","doi":"10.1177/13684302241226924","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302241226924","url":null,"abstract":"Objective:When task groups depend on all members’ contributions, one poor performer can threaten the entire group’s goal attainment. The model of pro-group intent (M-PGI) stipulates that group responses to such poor performers are primarily determined by the group’s assessment of that person’s willingness to help the group ( attributed pro-group intent). Despite supportive evidence, past research has neglected whether model predictions hold under conditions more representative of group life. The current study thus tests the M-PGI in (a) personal interaction, (b) settings beyond the work context, and (c) repeated decisions.Method:The current paper reports two experiments using repeated decision scenarios across a range of group situations (i.e., within-participant designs). The main experiment, moreover, manipulated whether two group members discussed their response to a described poor performer (interacting dyads) or decided individually (nominal dyads; between-participant factor).Results:Results provide consistent evidence for the M-PGI across contexts. Process analyses provide some evidence that model effects were stronger in interacting (vs. nominal) dyads.Conclusions:Interacting groups focus on poor performers’ intent when determining their responses. I discuss the implications of the M-PGI for group dynamics theory and research, as well as a range of applied fields.","PeriodicalId":48099,"journal":{"name":"Group Processes & Intergroup Relations","volume":"2017 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.4,"publicationDate":"2024-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139952496","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 : 2024-02-19DOI: 10.1177/13684302241229981
Vukašin Gligorić, Sandra Obradović
Much of the research on national identity investigates its negative aspects through the form of nationalism. However, what happens at the opposite end of the spectrum, when someone does not glorify the national ingroup but actively rejects it? Across two studies conducted in Serbia ( Ns = 349 and 554), we investigated national identification and disidentification, their antecedents, and consequences. We found no evidence to distinguish between (low) national identification and disidentification. Regarding antecedents of national identification, we found that self-stereotypes (positive and lack of negative) were the most important contributors, followed by right-wing social ideology. Regarding consequences, low national identifiers endorsed wider identities (e.g., European, world citizen) and had higher intentions to migrate. Most strikingly, low identifiers blatantly dehumanized ingroup members, even more so than high identifiers dehumanized (high-status) outgroups. In analyzing qualitative data, we contextualized the quantitative findings by showing that low identification is mainly articulated as a mismatch between self and ingroup prototype, consequently leading to dehumanization. We conclude that low national identification can have detrimental effects, but that more research in the non-Western context is necessary to properly understand this phenomenon.
{"title":"Active rejection or passive indifference? Mixed-methods evidence on national (dis)identification","authors":"Vukašin Gligorić, Sandra Obradović","doi":"10.1177/13684302241229981","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302241229981","url":null,"abstract":"Much of the research on national identity investigates its negative aspects through the form of nationalism. However, what happens at the opposite end of the spectrum, when someone does not glorify the national ingroup but actively rejects it? Across two studies conducted in Serbia ( Ns = 349 and 554), we investigated national identification and disidentification, their antecedents, and consequences. We found no evidence to distinguish between (low) national identification and disidentification. Regarding antecedents of national identification, we found that self-stereotypes (positive and lack of negative) were the most important contributors, followed by right-wing social ideology. Regarding consequences, low national identifiers endorsed wider identities (e.g., European, world citizen) and had higher intentions to migrate. Most strikingly, low identifiers blatantly dehumanized ingroup members, even more so than high identifiers dehumanized (high-status) outgroups. In analyzing qualitative data, we contextualized the quantitative findings by showing that low identification is mainly articulated as a mismatch between self and ingroup prototype, consequently leading to dehumanization. We conclude that low national identification can have detrimental effects, but that more research in the non-Western context is necessary to properly understand this phenomenon.","PeriodicalId":48099,"journal":{"name":"Group Processes & Intergroup Relations","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.4,"publicationDate":"2024-02-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139952507","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：