Perceptions of Interpersonal Versus Intergroup Violence: The Case of Sexual Assault

The social identity approach makes a distinction between behavior motivated by intergroup versus interpersonal identities, which may be relevant to victim blaming in the case of rape. Using a mock jury paradigm, we examined the impact of defining rape as an act of interpersonal violence (personal assault) versus intergroup violence (a ‘‘hate crime’’), crossed with a manipulation describing the attacker as either an acquaintance or stranger. Defining rape in intergroup terms led to less victim blame than when it was defined in interpersonal terms, and participants blamed the victim more when she was assaulted by an acquaintance than a stranger

Cross-Group Relationships and Collective Action: How do International Students Respond to Unequal Tuition Fee Increases?

Although positive cross-group contact can reduce prejudice, it also can undermine disadvantaged group members’ engagement in collective action (CA). However, some initial research suggests that contact with advantaged group members who are openly supportive of the disadvantaged group may not decrease, and may actually increase disadvantaged group members’ CA. This research used the unequal tuition fee increases at Simon Fraser University (SFU) to investigate international students’ CA intentions. We manipulated the contact partner’s (Canadian student) supportiveness and whether Canadian students directly benefited from the unequal tuition fee increases. The results indicated that when Canadian students were beneficiaries of the inequality, supportiveness from a Canadian student increased international students’ intentions of engaging in organizational disloyalty towards SFU (a form of CA) via increased group-based sadness. However, when Canadian students were bystanders, supportiveness decreased intentions of engaging in organizational disloyalty via reduced group-based sadness and fear

Renewed Promise for Positive Cross-group Contact: The Role of Supportive Contact in Empowering Collective Action

Positive cross-group contact can undermine disadvantaged group members\u27 collective action engagement. However, we hypothesized that positive cross-group contact in which an advantaged group member explicitly communicates opposition to inequality between groups ( supportive contact ) would not undermine collective action and would be empowering for disadvantaged group members. Study 1 focused on cross-group contact between international students and domestic students at an Australian university. Study 2 focused on immigrants to Canada, and provided an opportunity for a cross-group contact with a Canadian-born individual. The results revealed that supportive contact heightened collective action engagement relative to a number of comparison conditions involving other forms of positive cross-group contact. Increased perceptions of injustice emerged as the key mediator of the relationship between supportive contact and increased collective action engagement

Acting in Solidarity: Cross-group Contact Between Disadvantaged Group Members and Advantaged Group Allies

The actions of advantaged group activists (sometimes called “allies”) are admirable, and they likely make meaningful contributions to the movements they support. However, a nuanced understanding of the role of advantaged group allies must also consider the potential challenges of their participation. Both in their everyday lives and during their activist work, advantaged group allies are especially likely to have direct contact with disadvantaged group members. This paper considers when such contact may harm rather than help resistance movements by disadvantaged groups. We also suggest that to avoid these undermining effects, advantaged group allies must effectively communicate support for social change, understand the implications of their own privilege, offer autonomy-oriented support, and resist the urge to increase their own feelings of inclusion by co-opting relevant marginalized social identities

A large-scale test of the link between intergroup contact and support for social change

Guided by the early findings of social scientists, practitioners have long advocated for greater contact between groups to reduce prejudice and increase social cohesion. Recent work, however, suggests that intergroup contact can undermine support for social change towards greater equality, especially among disadvantaged group members. Using a large and heterogeneous dataset (12,997 individuals from 69 countries), we demonstrate that intergroup contact and support for social change towards greater equality are positively associated among members of advantaged groups (ethnic majorities and cis-heterosexuals) but negatively associated among disadvantaged groups (ethnic minorities and sexual and gender minorities). Specification-curve analysis revealed important variation in the size—and at times, direction—of correlations, depending on how contact and support for social change were measured. This allowed us to identify one type of support for change—willingness to work in solidarity— that is positively associated with intergroup contact among both advantaged and disadvantaged group members

Need satisfaction in intergroup contact:A multinational study of pathways toward social change

none43siFinanziamenti esterni a vari co-autoriWhat role does intergroup contact play in promoting support for social change toward greater social equality? Drawing on the needs-based model of reconciliation, we theorized that when inequality between groups is perceived as illegitimate, disadvantaged group members will experience a need for empowerment and advantaged group members a need for acceptance. When intergroup contact satisfies each group's needs, it should result in more mutual support for social change. Using four sets of survey data collected through the Zurich Intergroup Project in 23 countries, we tested several preregistered predictions, derived from the above reasoning, across a large variety of operationalizations. Two studies of disadvantaged groups (Ns = 689 ethnic minority members in Study 1 and 3,382 sexual/gender minorities in Study 2) support the hypothesis that, after accounting for the effects of intergroup contact and perceived illegitimacy, satisfying the need for empowerment (but not acceptance) during contact is positively related to support for social change. Two studies with advantaged groups (Ns = 2,937 ethnic majority members in Study 3 and 4,203 cis-heterosexual individuals in Study 4) showed that, after accounting for illegitimacy and intergroup contact, satisfying the need for acceptance (but also empowerment) is positively related to support for social change. Overall, findings suggest that intergroup contact is compatible with efforts to promote social change when group-specific needs are met. Thus, to encourage support for social change among both disadvantaged and advantaged group members, it is essential that, besides promoting mutual acceptance, intergroup contact interventions also give voice to and empower members of disadvantaged groups.mixedHässler, Tabea; Ullrich, Johannes; Sebben, Simone; Shnabel, Nurit; Bernardino, Michelle; Valdenegro, Daniel; Van Laar, Colette; González, Roberto; Visintin, Emilio Paolo; Tropp, Linda R; Ditlmann, Ruth K; Abrams, Dominic; Aydin, Anna Lisa; Pereira, Adrienne; Selvanathan, Hema Preya; von Zimmermann, Jorina; Lantos, Nóra Anna; Sainz, Mario; Glenz, Andreas; Kende, Anna; Oberpfalzerová, Hana; Bilewicz, Michal; Branković, Marija; Noor, Masi; Pasek, Michael H; Wright, Stephen C; Žeželj, Iris; Kuzawinska, Olga; Maloku, Edona; Otten, Sabine; Gul, Pelin; Bareket, Orly; Corkalo Biruski, Dinka; Mugnol-Ugarte, Luiza; Osin, Evgeny; Baiocco, Roberto; Cook, Jonathan E; Dawood, Maneeza; Droogendyk, Lisa; Loyo, Angélica Herrera; Jelić, Margareta; Kelmendi, Kaltrina; Pistella, JessicaHässler, Tabea; Ullrich, Johannes; Sebben, Simone; Shnabel, Nurit; Bernardino, Michelle; Valdenegro, Daniel; Van Laar, Colette; González, Roberto; Visintin, Emilio Paolo; Tropp, Linda R; Ditlmann, Ruth K; Abrams, Dominic; Aydin, Anna Lisa; Pereira, Adrienne; Selvanathan, Hema Preya; von Zimmermann, Jorina; Lantos, Nóra Anna; Sainz, Mario; Glenz, Andreas; Kende, Anna; Oberpfalzerová, Hana; Bilewicz, Michal; Branković, Marija; Noor, Masi; Pasek, Michael H; Wright, Stephen C; Žeželj, Iris; Kuzawinska, Olga; Maloku, Edona; Otten, Sabine; Gul, Pelin; Bareket, Orly; Corkalo Biruski, Dinka; Mugnol-Ugarte, Luiza; Osin, Evgeny; Baiocco, Roberto; Cook, Jonathan E; Dawood, Maneeza; Droogendyk, Lisa; Loyo, Angélica Herrera; Jelić, Margareta; Kelmendi, Kaltrina; Pistella, Jessic

But I’m not like the rest of them: do majority group members’ emotional expressions affect collective action orientation in minority group members?

Although creating positive cross-group contact can improve attitudes, it may also reduce collective action orientation (CAO). Minority group members who have positive interpersonal interactions with majority group members may be less likely to perceive their group’s low status as unjust or to experience strong collective control; both essential to a strong CAO (see Wright & Lubensky, 2009). Two studies tested whether majority group members’ expressions of unrepresentative emotions (guilt, shame, and ingroup-directed anger) regarding intergroup inequality would allow for positive cross-group interactions between majority and minority group members, without undermining minority group members’ CAO. Findings confirmed that expressions of anger, guilt, and shame by a majority group member were seen as unrepresentative, and interactions including these expressions can be experienced as positive by minority group members. In addition, minority group members exposed to expressions of anger reported higher CAO, while those exposed to expressions of guilt reported lower CAO

The Role of Supportive Contact in Increasing Collective Action Engagement Among Disadvantaged Group Members

Recent research and theorizing suggests that friendly cross-group contact, while effective at improving intergroup attitudes, can undermine disadvantaged group members’ collective action engagement. In a series of 3 experimental studies, the present research investigated “supportive contact” - friendly cross-group contact in which an advantaged group member demonstrates their interest and engagement in opposing group-based inequality. I hypothesized that supportive contact would not undermine collective action, and would instead empower disadvantaged group members, because of its potential to strengthen disadvantaged group members’ perceptions of injustice and ingroup identification. Study 1 focused on immigrants to Canada, and provided an opportunity for cross-group contact with a Canadian-born individual. Study 2 focused on international students at an Australian university, and investigated the effects of recalling past contact with a domestic student. These two studies revealed that compared to a number of other forms of friendly cross-group contact, supportive contact led to greater collective action engagement. Across both studies, increased perceptions of injustice emerged as the key mediator of the relationship between supportive contact and increased collective action engagement. Study 3 focused on cross-group contact between men and women, and revealed a complex pattern of results. Overall, supportive contact led to lower collective action engagement among women, compared to low supportiveness contact. However, analysis of the indirect effects revealed a pattern of results consistent with a suppressor effect: supportive contact also increased collective action engagement among women, due to the supportive group-based emotions shared by the male friend, and the positive impact of these emotions on ingroup identification. The paper discusses the promise of supportive contact, suggests applied applications, and makes recommendations for future research

Means and standard deviations (in parentheses) by condition and by gender for Victim Blame variable.

<p>Means and standard deviations (in parentheses) by condition and by gender for Victim Blame variable.</p