The Shadows of the Past

We examined associations between two orientations based on historical group trauma, a form of enduring group victimhood (Perpetual Ingroup Victimhood Orientation [PIVO]) and the belief that one’s group might itself become a victimizer (Fear of Victimizing [FOV]), and attitudes, cognitions, and emotions related to intergroup conflicts. PIVO was positively and FOV was negatively related to aggressive attitudes and emotions toward the outgroup (Studies 1a-1c, Israeli–Palestinian conflict), and to the attribution of responsibility for a series of hostilities to the outgroup (Study 3, Israeli–Palestinian conflict). PIVO was negatively and FOV positively related to support for forgiveness and reconciliation (Study 2, Northern Ireland conflict). In Experimental Study 4, FOV predicted greater accuracy in remembering harm, regardless of victims’ group identity, whereas PIVO was associated with reduced accuracy only when victims were Palestinians (outgroup members). Taken together, these findings indicate that both orientations have a significant impact on intergroup conflicts and their resolution

From Readiness to Action: How Motivation Works

We present a new theoretical construct labeled motivational readiness. It is defined as the inclination, whether or not ultimately implemented, to satisfy a desire. A general model of readiness is described which builds on the work of prior theories, including animal learning models and personality approaches, and which aims to integrate a variety of research findings across different domains of motivational research. Components of this model include the Want state (that is, an individual’s currently active desire), and the Expectancy of being able to satisfy that Want. We maintain that the Want concept is the critical ingredient in motivational readiness: without it, readiness cannot exist. In contrast, some motivational readiness can exist without Expectancy. We also discuss the role of incentive in motivational readiness. Incentive is presently conceived of in terms of a Match between a Want and a Perceived Situational Affordance. Whereas in classic models incentive was portrayed as a first order determinant of motivational readiness, here we describe it as a second order factor which affects readiness by influencing Want, Expectancy, or both. The new model’s relation to its theoretical predecessors, and its implications for future research, also are discussed

Shamed If You Do, Shamed If You Do Not: Group-Based Moral Emotions, Accountability, and Tolerance of Enemy Collateral Casualties

Civilian casualties contribute to the perpetuation of intergroup conflicts through increased radicalization and hostilities, but little is known on the psychological processes that affect responses to outgroup civilian casualties. The goal of the present research was to explore two factors expected to lead group members to act more cautiously, thereby reducing civilian casualties: perceived accountability and forecast group-based moral emotions. In two studies, Jewish–Israeli civilians (Study 1) and soldiers (Study 2) were asked to forecast their group-based moral emotions in case of Palestinian (i.e., outgroup) civilian casualties, then exposed to accountability manipulations. Participants who expected to feel low levels of shame and were primed with accountability made more cautious decisions than those in the control condition. Participants who expected to feel high levels of shame were unaffected by accountability primes. Theoretical and practical implications regarding forecast moral emotions and accountability as an intervention in intergroup conflicts are discussed

Ratings of the advisee's arrogance by his/her relative expertise by his/her manner (Study 4).

<p>Ratings of the advisee's arrogance by his/her relative expertise by his/her manner (Study 4).</p

The “more is less” effect in equifinal structures: alternative means reduce the intensity and quality of motivation

Prior research in a multiflnality context has demonstrated a dilution effect whereby the number of goals connected to a means is inversely connected to the perceived instrumentality of each means (Zhang, Fishbach, &amp; Kruglanski, 2007). In the present research, six studies tested whether the dilution effect would also occur in an equiflnality context where more than one means serves a single goal. The results corroborated this hypothesis. Presenting additional means (Study 1) and having participants self-generate multiple means (Study 2) led, as expected, to a reduction in perceived effectiveness of the means. The effect was stronger when the means within the set were seen as distinct rather than similar (Study 3). Increasing the strength of association between one means and the goal led to a reduction in the associative strength of the other means within the set and to a decrease of its perceived effectiveness (Study 4). The dilution effect was found to influence means selection and the magnitude of means engagement (Study 5). Lastly, presenting additional means to attain a goal reduced the perceived effectiveness of the means, which in turn reduced participants' intrinsic motivation to pursue it (Study 6). Overall, the present work demonstrates that the presence of alternative means to a goal reduces the quality and intensity of engagement in a given means. Broad implications of these findings are discussed

Evidence for arrogance: On the relative importance of expertise, outcome, and manner

<div><p>Arrogant behavior is as old as human nature. Nonetheless, the factors that cause people to be perceived as arrogant have received very little research attention. In this paper, we focused on a typical manifestation of arrogance: dismissive behavior. In particular, we explored the conditions under which a person who dismissed advice would be perceived as arrogant. We examined two factors: the advisee’s competence, and the manner in which he or she dismissed the advice. The effect of the advisee’s competence was tested by manipulating two competence cues: relative expertise, and the outcome of the advice dismissal (i.e., whether the advisee was right or wrong). In six studies (<i>N</i> = 1304), participants made arrogance judgments about protagonists who dismissed the advice of another person while the advisees’ relative expertise (compared to the advisor), their eventual correctness, and the manner of their dismissal were manipulated in between-participant designs. Across various types of decisions and advisee-advisor relationships, the results show that less expert, less correct, and ruder advisees are perceived as more arrogant. We also find that outcome trumps expertise, and manner trumps both expertise and outcomes. In two additional studies (<i>N</i> = 101), we examined people’s naïve theories about the relative importance of the aforementioned arrogance cues. These studies showed that people overestimate the role of expertise information as compared to the role of interpersonal manner and outcomes. Thus, our results suggest that people may commit arrogant faux pas because they erroneously expect that their expertise will justify their dismissive behavior.</p></div

Labels assigned to the advisee’s behavior by outcome by the advisee’s expertise.

<p>Labels assigned to the advisee’s behavior by outcome by the advisee’s expertise.</p

Ratings of the advisee's arrogance by the outcome and the manner of his/her behavior (Study 5).

<p>Ratings of the advisee's arrogance by the outcome and the manner of his/her behavior (Study 5).</p

Ratings of the advisee's arrogance by his/her relative expertise by his/her manner (Study 4).

<p>Ratings of the advisee's arrogance by his/her relative expertise by his/her manner (Study 4).</p