动员作用还是镇静作用?有利和不利群体之间的群体间联系和集体行动之间的联系的叙述性回顾。

IF 7.7 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL Personality and Social Psychology Review Pub Date : 2024-05-01 Epub Date: 2023-10-21 DOI:10.1177/10888683231203141
Veronica Margherita Cocco, Loris Vezzali, Sofia Stathi, Gian Antonio Di Bernardo, John F Dovidio
{"title":"动员作用还是镇静作用?有利和不利群体之间的群体间联系和集体行动之间的联系的叙述性回顾。","authors":"Veronica Margherita Cocco, Loris Vezzali, Sofia Stathi, Gian Antonio Di Bernardo, John F Dovidio","doi":"10.1177/10888683231203141","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Academic abstract: </strong>In this narrative review, we examined 134 studies of the relationship between intergroup contact and collective action benefiting disadvantaged groups. We aimed to identify whether, when, and why contact has mobilizing effects (promoting collective action) or sedative effects (inhibiting collective action). For both moderators and mediators, factors associated with the intergroup situation (compared with those associated with the out-group or the in-group) emerged as the most important. Group status had important effects. For members of socially advantaged groups (examined in 98 studies, 100 samples), contact had a general mobilizing effect, which was stronger when contact increased awareness of experiences of injustice among members of disadvantaged groups. For members of disadvantaged groups (examined in 49 studies, 58 samples), contact had mixed effects. Contact that increased awareness of injustice mobilized collection action; contact that made the legitimacy of group hierarchy or threat of retaliation more salient produced sedative effects.</p><p><strong>Public abstract: </strong>We present a review of existing studies that have investigated the relationship between intergroup contact and collective action aimed at promoting equity for disadvantaged groups. We further consider the influence of contact that is positive or negative and face-to-face or indirect (e.g., through mass or social media), and we distinguish between collective action that involves socially acceptable behaviors or is destructive and violent. We identified 134 studies, considering both advantaged (100 samples) and disadvantaged groups (58 samples). We found that intergroup contact impacts collective action differently depending on group status. Contact generally leads advantaged groups to mobilize in favor of disadvantaged groups. However, contact has variable effects on members of disadvantaged groups: It sometimes promotes their collective action in support of their own group; in other cases, it leads them to be less likely to engage in such action. We examine when and why contact can have these different effects.</p>","PeriodicalId":48386,"journal":{"name":"Personality and Social Psychology Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":7.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11010580/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mobilizing or Sedative Effects? A Narrative Review of the Association Between Intergroup Contact and Collective Action Among Advantaged and Disadvantaged Groups.\",\"authors\":\"Veronica Margherita Cocco, Loris Vezzali, Sofia Stathi, Gian Antonio Di Bernardo, John F Dovidio\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10888683231203141\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Academic abstract: </strong>In this narrative review, we examined 134 studies of the relationship between intergroup contact and collective action benefiting disadvantaged groups. We aimed to identify whether, when, and why contact has mobilizing effects (promoting collective action) or sedative effects (inhibiting collective action). For both moderators and mediators, factors associated with the intergroup situation (compared with those associated with the out-group or the in-group) emerged as the most important. Group status had important effects. For members of socially advantaged groups (examined in 98 studies, 100 samples), contact had a general mobilizing effect, which was stronger when contact increased awareness of experiences of injustice among members of disadvantaged groups. For members of disadvantaged groups (examined in 49 studies, 58 samples), contact had mixed effects. Contact that increased awareness of injustice mobilized collection action; contact that made the legitimacy of group hierarchy or threat of retaliation more salient produced sedative effects.</p><p><strong>Public abstract: </strong>We present a review of existing studies that have investigated the relationship between intergroup contact and collective action aimed at promoting equity for disadvantaged groups. We further consider the influence of contact that is positive or negative and face-to-face or indirect (e.g., through mass or social media), and we distinguish between collective action that involves socially acceptable behaviors or is destructive and violent. We identified 134 studies, considering both advantaged (100 samples) and disadvantaged groups (58 samples). We found that intergroup contact impacts collective action differently depending on group status. Contact generally leads advantaged groups to mobilize in favor of disadvantaged groups. However, contact has variable effects on members of disadvantaged groups: It sometimes promotes their collective action in support of their own group; in other cases, it leads them to be less likely to engage in such action. We examine when and why contact can have these different effects.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48386,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Personality and Social Psychology Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11010580/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Personality and Social Psychology Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683231203141\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/10/21 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Personality and Social Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683231203141","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/10/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

学术摘要:在这篇叙述性综述中,我们研究了134项关于群体间接触和有利于弱势群体的集体行动之间关系的研究。我们旨在确定接触是否、何时以及为什么具有动员作用(促进集体行动)或镇静作用(抑制集体行动)。对于调节者和中介者来说,与组间情况相关的因素(与组外或组内相关的因素相比)是最重要的。群体地位产生了重要影响。对于社会弱势群体的成员(在98项研究、100个样本中进行了调查),接触具有普遍的动员作用,当接触提高了弱势群体成员对不公正经历的认识时,这种动员作用更强。对于弱势群体的成员(在49项研究、58个样本中进行了调查),接触产生了混合影响。提高对不公正认识的联系动员了收集行动;使群体等级制度的合法性或报复威胁更加突出的接触产生了镇静作用。公共摘要:我们对现有研究进行了回顾,这些研究调查了群体间接触和旨在促进弱势群体公平的集体行动之间的关系。我们进一步考虑积极或消极、面对面或间接(例如,通过大众或社交媒体)的接触的影响,并区分涉及社会可接受行为或破坏性和暴力的集体行动。我们确定了134项研究,同时考虑了优势群体(100个样本)和弱势群体(58个样本)。我们发现,群体间接触对集体行动的影响因群体地位而异。接触通常会导致优势群体动员起来支持弱势群体。然而,接触对弱势群体成员的影响各不相同:它有时会促进他们支持自己群体的集体行动;在其他情况下,这会导致他们不太可能参与此类行动。我们研究了接触何时以及为什么会产生这些不同的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Mobilizing or Sedative Effects? A Narrative Review of the Association Between Intergroup Contact and Collective Action Among Advantaged and Disadvantaged Groups.

Academic abstract: In this narrative review, we examined 134 studies of the relationship between intergroup contact and collective action benefiting disadvantaged groups. We aimed to identify whether, when, and why contact has mobilizing effects (promoting collective action) or sedative effects (inhibiting collective action). For both moderators and mediators, factors associated with the intergroup situation (compared with those associated with the out-group or the in-group) emerged as the most important. Group status had important effects. For members of socially advantaged groups (examined in 98 studies, 100 samples), contact had a general mobilizing effect, which was stronger when contact increased awareness of experiences of injustice among members of disadvantaged groups. For members of disadvantaged groups (examined in 49 studies, 58 samples), contact had mixed effects. Contact that increased awareness of injustice mobilized collection action; contact that made the legitimacy of group hierarchy or threat of retaliation more salient produced sedative effects.

Public abstract: We present a review of existing studies that have investigated the relationship between intergroup contact and collective action aimed at promoting equity for disadvantaged groups. We further consider the influence of contact that is positive or negative and face-to-face or indirect (e.g., through mass or social media), and we distinguish between collective action that involves socially acceptable behaviors or is destructive and violent. We identified 134 studies, considering both advantaged (100 samples) and disadvantaged groups (58 samples). We found that intergroup contact impacts collective action differently depending on group status. Contact generally leads advantaged groups to mobilize in favor of disadvantaged groups. However, contact has variable effects on members of disadvantaged groups: It sometimes promotes their collective action in support of their own group; in other cases, it leads them to be less likely to engage in such action. We examine when and why contact can have these different effects.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
19.00
自引率
1.90%
发文量
20
期刊介绍: Title: Personality and Social Psychology Review (PSPR) Journal Overview: Official journal of SPSP, the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc. Premiere outlet for original theoretical papers and conceptual review articles in all areas of personality and social psychology Features stimulating conceptual pieces identifying new research directions and comprehensive review papers providing integrative frameworks for existing theory and research programs Topics Covered: Attitudes and Social Cognition: Examines the inner workings of the human mind in understanding, evaluating, and responding to the social environment Interpersonal and Group Processes: Explores patterns of interaction and interdependence characterizing everyday human functioning Intergroup Relations: Investigates determinants of prejudice, conflict, cooperation, and harmonious relationships between social groups Personality and Individual Differences: Focuses on causes, assessment, structures, and processes giving rise to human variation Biological and Cultural Influences: Studies the biological and cultural mediation of social psychological and personality processes
期刊最新文献
Insight in the Conspiracist's Mind. Connecting to Community: A Social Identity Approach to Neighborhood Mental Health. On Personality Measures and Their Data: A Classification of Measurement Approaches and Their Recommended Uses. Power to Detect What? Considerations for Planning and Evaluating Sample Size. Intergenerational Storytelling and Positive Psychosocial Development: Stories as Developmental Resources for Marginalized Groups.
×
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