Birte Siem
Approaching the Other: Determinants of Positive Behavior across Group Boundaries in Benign and Conflictual Intergroup Contexts
Habilitation
Approaching the Other:
Determinants of Positive Behavior across Group Boundaries in Benign and Conflictual Intergroup Contexts
Kumulative Habilitationsschrift
zur Erlangung der Venia Legendi für das Fach Psychologie vorgelegt an der
Fakultät für Psychologie der FernUniversität in Hagen
von
Dr. phil. Birte Siem
Hagen, September 2019
Table of Contents
1 Overview ... 3
2 Positive Behavior across Group Boundaries: Traditional and Emerging Perspectives ... 3
3 Benign Intergroup Contexts: Determinants of Dyadic Cross-Group Helping ... 5
3.1 Theoretical Background and Previous Research ... 6
3.2 A Systematic Investigation of the Recipient’s Role in Dyadic Cross-Group Helping ... 7
3.2.1 Recipients’ perceived benevolence ... 8
3.2.2 Recipients’ perceptions of quality of help ... 11
3.2.3 Recipients’ willingness to accept help ... 12
4 Conflictual Intergroup Contexts: Determinants of Positive Cross-Group Behavior in Contexts of Direct and Structural Violence ... 14
4.1 Theoretical Background and Previous Research ... 14
4.2 A Systematic Investigation of Group Members’ Socio-Emotional Needs in Contexts of Direct and Structural Violence ... 16
4.2.1 Testing the generalizability of differential needs across different contexts ... 16
4.2.2 Reconciling NBMR-based and rank-based perspectives ... 19
4.2.3 Introducing self-focus as a mediator ... 20
5 Discussion ... 22
5.1 Research on Benign Contexts: Implications for Positive Cross-Group Behavior ... 23
5.2 Research on Conflictual Contexts: Implications for Positive Cross-Group Behavior . 24 5.3 Towards an Integration of the Two Research Lines ... 26
6 References ... 30
Publications Included in the Habilitation Thesis ... 40
Erklärung ... ..43
1 Overview
This habilitation thesis comprises a compilation of publications that address central determinants of positive behavior across group boundaries, and that, taken together,
significantly contribute to our knowledge about the processes that facilitate genuinely positive cross-group behavior. The thesis consists of four major parts. In a first part, I will provide a brief overview of traditional and emerging perspectives on positive cross-group behavior with special emphasis on research showing that forms of positive cross-group behaviors should be understood as a unique phenomenon that requires unique theoretical explanations (Publication 1). In a second and third part, I will introduce two research lines focusing on determinants of positive cross-group behavior in two different intergroup contexts – benign contexts of dyadic cross-group helping (Publications 2 to 6), and conflictual contexts characterized by direct or structural violence (Publications 7 to 10). Both lines address determinants that have not received much empirical attention in previous work. In a final part, I will discuss theoretical and practical implications of these two research lines, and outline two possible ways of integrating them by referring to two recent works (Publications 11 and 12).
2 Positive Behavior across Group Boundaries: Traditional and Emerging Perspectives This habilitation thesis’ focus on positive cross-group behavior is based on the long tradition of research on intergroup relations within social psychology. Yet, its emphasis differs from much of the traditional work. Specifically, traditional work has viewed
intergroup processes primarily through the negative lens of prejudice and discrimination (e.g., Allport, 1954; Dovidio, Hewstone, Glick, & Esses, 2010; Jones, 1998), and has thus focused on reducing these negative phenomena as the key to more positive intergroup relations. One prominent example is research based on Allport’s contact hypothesis (1954) demonstrating that intergroup contact is a potent means of reducing negative intergroup processes across a variety of different intergroup contexts (e.g., Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006; 2011). Only in the
recent years have social psychologists started to move beyond the negative intergroup behavior paradigm, and have become increasingly interested in understanding the specific psychological processes that underlie genuinely positive cross-group behavior, such as cross- group helping, reconciliation, or benevolent cross-group exploration (e.g., Jonas &
Mummendey, 2008; Stürmer & Snyder, 2010; Tropp & Mallett, 2011). The group of publications making up this thesis add to this developing field.
Publication 11 makes a particularly strong case for a paradigm shift. Specifically, it significantly contributes to accumulating evidence that positive intergroup attitudes and behaviors cannot simply be extrapolated from the absence or reduced levels of prejudice or discrimination (e.g., Pittinsky, Rosenthal, & Montoya, 2011). In this publication, we introduce a personality perspective on xenophilia, a specific form of positive cross-group behavior defined as an attraction to foreign cultures or people (Antweiler, 2009). The proposed perspective is based on the HEXACO personality framework (e.g., Ashton & Lee, 2007) which differentiates between two classes of personality traits: endeavor-related traits, representing tendencies to invest individual resources in exploring new opportunities to obtain social, ideational, or material gains (despite potential risks); and altruism/cooperation-related traits, representing tendencies to contribute to some mutual benefit (and thus requiring the certainty that one’s contribution will not be exploited). Integrating this framework with research on intergroup behavior, we expected individuals high in endeavor-related traits to be particularly disposed to engaging in the benevolent exploration of other cultural groups, while individuals high in altruism/cooperation-related traits should be rather reluctant to do so. The results of three studies (overall N = 1,007) confirmed the expected primacy of endeavor- related traits in predicting xenophile attitudes. Moreover, the HEXACO personality traits predicted xenophile attitudes above and beyond traditional personality precursors of
1 The publications making up this thesis are referred to in several parts of the thesis. When they are underlined,
they are described in more detail.
xenophobia (e.g., social dominance orientation, Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994).
In sum, then, these findings not only support a novel personality perspective on xenophilia, but also convincingly show that a thorough understanding of genuinely positive cross-group behavior requires the consideration of unique determinants above and beyond typical
predictors of negative cross-group processes.
This research is complemented by a growing body of studies focusing on different determinants of positive cross-group behavior (see Siem, Stürmer, & Pittinsky, 2016, for an overview), including individual differences in motives (Paolini, Wright, Dys-Steenbergen, &
Favara, 2016; Stürmer & Benbow, 2017), intergroup contact as a means of promoting positive processes such as empathy or trust (e.g., Davies & Aron, 2016; Hewstone et al., 2014),
processes underlying dyadic cross-group helping (e.g., Siem & Stürmer, 2012), or collectively shared beliefs and norms (e.g., Tropp, O’Brien, & Migacheva, 2014). Publications 2 to 10 of this thesis contribute to these developments by focusing on determinants of positive cross- group behavior in two different intergroup contexts: benign contexts, specifically contexts of dyadic cross-group helping (Publications 2 to 6), and conflictual contexts characterized by direct or structural violence (Publications 7 to 10). As will be detailed below, both lines of research address determinants that have not received much empirical attention in previous research. Specifically, Publications 2 to 6 investigate the role of recipient-related variables in dyadic outgroup helping. Publications 7 to 10 examine conflicting parties’ differential socio- emotional needs as basic determinants of positive cross-group behavior.
3 Benign Intergroup Contexts: Determinants of Dyadic Cross-Group Helping Publications 2 to 6 focus on a relatively benign intergroup context: dyadic cross-group helping, i.e. helping situations in which the potential helper’s and potential recipient’s
memberships in different groups are salient. This work is informed by a group-level theory of helping and altruism that was initially introduced by Stürmer and Snyder (2010) and is
significantly extended in Publication 2. The theory’s key proposition states that salient ingroup/outgroup distinctions play a central role in moderating the motivational processes underlying helping because they affect perceptions of self-other (dis)similarities. While previous research has mainly focused on how these perceived (dis)similarities moderate the link between potential helpers’ motivations and their helping intentions or behavior (e.g., Stürmer, Snyder, Kropp, & Siem, 2006), their interplay with recipient-related variables has received less systematic attention. Publications 3 to 6 sought to address this gap.
3.1 Theoretical Background and Previous Research
In line with other recent perspectives on group-level helping (e.g., Halabi & Nadler, 2017; van Leeuwen & Täuber, 2010), the group-level theory of helping and altruism within and across group boundaries (Publication 2) emphasizes that outgroup discrimination in helping is not as ubiquitous as suggested by traditional frameworks of ingroup bias and intergroup discrimination (e.g., Brewer, 1979), but that the motivational processes underlying helping differ depending on the needy other’s group membership. A central proposition of this theory is that salient ingroup/outgroup distinctions between the helper and recipient play a crucial role in moderating these motivational processes because they affect perceived self- other (dis)similarities. Specifically, when the needy other belongs to the helper’s ingroup or an outgroup perceived as similar to their2 ingroup, i.e. when group-based self-other
similarities are high, the helper’s empathic feelings (and other processes promoting helping among kin and close friends) should positively predict helping, but not (or to a lesser extent) when the needy other belongs to an outgroup the helper perceives as dissimilar to their ingroup, i.e., when group-based self-other dissimilarities are high. This is because group- based similarities serve as an indication that the self and other are “of the same kind”, rendering the other’s welfare of immediate self-relevance. This, in turn, increases the
2 Please note that I use singular they as a gender-neutral singular pronoun in this thesis.
likelihood that people will act upon their feelings of empathy and help. In contrast, group- based dissimilarities may function as a warning signal that triggers negative interaction expectancies on the basis of stereotypes and feelings of intergroup anxiety (e.g., Mallett, Wilson, & Gilbert, 2008; Stephan & Stephan, 1985). Such processes, in turn, should direct people’s attention away from the other and towards the self. Accordingly, when people are considering whether or not to help an outgroup member, especially a member of an outgroup perceived as dissimilar to their ingroup, they should be hesitant to let themselves be guided by their empathic feelings, and instead base their decision on a more systematic mode of
information processing involving a careful consideration of the potential costs and benefits for the self. A number of studies have confirmed these assumptions, showing that empathy- motivated helping is more likely when the recipient belongs to the helper’s ingroup or an outgroup perceived as similar, while helping an outgroup member, especially a member of a dissimilar outgroup, typically results from more self-focused, cost-benefit-related concerns (e.g., Siem & Stürmer, 2012; Stürmer et al., 2006; Stürmer, Snyder, & Omoto, 2005).
While this previous empirical work mainly focused on potential helpers and their motivations, the main aim of Publications 3 to 6 was to more systematically investigate the role of recipient-related variables in dyadic outgroup helping, and how these variables are affected by perceptions of group-based self-other (dis)similarities.
3.2 A Systematic Investigation of the Recipient’s Role in Dyadic Cross-Group Helping The work presented in this section focuses on three recipient-related variables:
recipients’ individual attributes, recipients’ perceptions of the help provided, and recipients’
willingness to accept help. It can be organized around three key questions: 1) When and why do outgroup recipients’ individual attributes, especially their benevolence, influence people’s helping decisions (Publications 3 and 4)? 2) How do group-based self-other (dis)similarities affect recipients’ perceptions of the quality of the provided help (Publication 5)? 3) Under
which conditions are members of stigmatized minority groups willing to accept offers of help from majority-led service organizations (Publication 6)?
3.2.1 Recipients’ perceived benevolence. Publications 3 and 4 sought to more thoroughly examine the role of the recipient’s individual attributes in people’s decisions to help an outgroup member. One assumption of the group-level theory of helping and altruism (Publication 2) is that, particularly in cases where the recipient belongs to an outgroup
perceived as dissimilar to a potential helper’s ingroup, the recipient’s individual attributes can be very informative as they allow the helper to predict potential costs and benefits of the interaction. Put differently, detecting positive individual attributes should signal that the interaction may in fact proceed with fewer complications than initially thought. Initial support for this notion comes from studies showing that a recipient’s perceived attractiveness is a stronger predictor of helping when the recipient is a member of an outgroup perceived as dissimilar to the helper’s ingroup than when the person is an ingroup member or a member of a similar outgroup (Siem & Stürmer, 2012; Stürmer et al., 2005; also Dovidio et al., 1997).
Publication 3 aimed to extend this line of research. A key assumption of this publication is that people, when they are confronted with the decision of whether or not to help an outgroup member, often experience motivational conflict due to the simultaneous presence of factors provoking help (e.g., social norms, Gaertner & Dovidio, 1977) and factors provoking non-help (e.g., negative interaction expectancies due to perceived group-based self–other dissimilarities, e.g., Mallett et al., 2008). We proposed that one way people can deal with this conflict is by taking a closer look at the target’s individual attributes, especially those indicating the target’s benevolence. Benevolence comprises judgments of a person’s sociability and morality (e.g., Brambilla & Leach, 2014), and should thus be an especially powerful signal that the cross-group interaction may run less negatively than initially thought.
In summary, we assumed that the target’s perceived benevolence should reduce negative interaction expectancies, especially for a target from a dissimilar outgroup, and this should in
turn facilitate a decision in favor of helping. We tested these predictions in three studies in which German subjects were asked to adopt the role of a cross-cultural counselor facing the decision of whether or not to help a (fictitious) needy immigrant client.
In Study 1 (N = 96), we manipulated the intercultural dissimilarity of the client’s country of origin to Germany (low, high) as a factor affecting non-help, and normative pressure to meet with the client (low, high) as a factor affecting help in a between-subjects design. We then recorded the time subjects spent inspecting a screening form with
information about the client’s individual attributes, and measured the perceived benevolence of the client, and the subjects’ helping intentions. The results confirmed that subjects with a client from a culturally dissimilar county (but not those with a client from a similar country) looked longer at the screening form before deciding to help when normative pressure to help was high than when it was low. Moreover, the client’s perceived benevolence only predicted helping intentions when factors prompting non-help (high intercultural dissimilarity) and factors prompting help (high normative pressure) were present concurrently.
Study 2 (N = 141) aimed to test the assumed moderated mediation relationship between the client’s benevolence, helping intentions, negative interaction expectancies, and motivational conflict. We manipulated intergroup dissimilarity (low, high) and the client’s perceived benevolence (control vs. high) in a between-subjects design (normative pressure was held constantly high). The results confirmed that perceiving the client as highly benevolent facilitated helping because it dispelled potential helpers’ negative interaction expectancies. As expected, this mediation was only observed among subjects who were likely to experience motivational conflict (i.e., those whose client was from a highly culturally dissimilar country). In Study 3 (N = 46), we were able to replicate these mediation findings in a within-subjects design.
Publication 4 extended these findings by integrating them with work on empathy- motivated outgroup helping. As noted above, a number of studies informed by the group-level
theory of helping and altruism (Publication 2) demonstrate that perceived group-based self- other dissimilarities can inhibit a potential helper’s feelings of empathy as a motivator for helping (Siem & Stürmer, 2012; Stürmer et al., 2005; 2006). However, empathy-motivated helping is more likely to meet the recipient’s unique needs than helping motivated by self- focused concerns (e.g., Batson, 1991; Sibicky, Schroeder, & Dovidio, 1995). The question of how to promote empathy-motivated helping towards members of an outgroup perceived to be dissimilar is thus highly relevant. In Publication 4, we assumed that when a potential helper encounters a recipient from a dissimilar outgroup, perceiving them as benevolent can facilitate empathy-motivated helping (because it dispels negative interaction expectancies due to
perceived group-based dissimilarities; see Publication 3).
Three studies tested this mechanism with German subjects who, as in the studies of Publication 3, were asked to adopt the role of a cross-cultural counselor, and received
information about a (fictitious) immigrant client seeking counseling. In Study 1 (N = 123), we manipulated the intercultural dissimilarity between the client’s country of origin and Germany (low, high) and the target’s benevolence-related features (low, high). We then measured subjects’ perceptions of the client’s sociability (a component of benevolence), their empathic feelings, and their helping intentions. The results confirmed that when intercultural
dissimilarity was high, the client’s perceived sociability had a facilitative effect on the
empathy-helping intentions link, while empathy predicted helping intentions independently of perceived sociability when dissimilarity was low.
In Study 2 (N = 176), we were able to replicate the Empathy x Dissimilarity x Benevolence effect in a similar context of cross-cultural helping, but experimentally manipulated the target’s perceived benevolence instead of measuring this variable.
Study 3 (N = 178) aimed to compare the relative contributions of the trustworthiness and sociability aspects of an out-group target’s perceived benevolence in facilitating the positive effect of empathy on helping. Based on research on impression formation (e.g.,
Brambilla & Leach, 2014), we predicted a primacy of the trustworthiness over the sociability component of an out-group member’s perceived benevolence in dis-inhibiting the empathy- helping link, especially in cases where the out-group is perceived as dissimilar to the in- group. Moreover, we assumed a moderating role of subjects’ political orientation such that the assumed relative primacy of trustworthiness over sociability perceptions should be stronger among conservatives than among liberals (because conservatives tend to associate immigrants more with potential exploitation, e.g., Esses, Jackson, Dovidio, & Hodson, 2005). To test these predictions, we varied the perceived sociability (low, high) and trustworthiness (low, high) of a target from a highly culturally dissimilar country in a between-subjects design, and measured subjects’ empathic feelings and helping intentions. The results confirmed that the relative primacy of trustworthiness over sociability perceptions in facilitating the empathy- helping relationship was stronger among conservatives than among liberals (whose feelings of empathy were positively related to helping across all four cells of the research design).
3.2.2 Recipients’ perceptions of quality of help. While Publications 3 and 4 examined the influence of recipient-related variables on helpers’, not recipients’, responses, we adopted a “true” recipient perspective in Publications 5 and 6. Publication 5 (single study, N = 68 helper-recipient dyads) focused on recipients’ perceptions of the quality of help provided by assessing their perceptions of need responsiveness, i.e., the extent to which the help matches their actual specific needs – an important criterion that has been relatively neglected in previous work on group-level helping. As outlined above, a critical determinant of providing need-responsive help is helpers’ empathic feelings for the needy other (e.g., Sibicky et al., 1995). These feelings’ impact on helping, in turn, critically depends on perceptions of group-based self-other (dis)similarities (e.g., Publication 2). Integrating these lines of research, we assumed that in helper-recipient dyads in which the helper and recipient belong to similar groups, recipients directly benefit from the helper’s empathic feelings insofar as these feelings translate into greater need responsiveness. In dissimilar dyads,
helpers should be motivated by rather self-focused concerns, which direct their attention away from the other’s needs. Thus, among dissimilar dyads, recipients should perceive lower levels of need responsiveness as helpers become increasingly motivated by self-focused concerns.
We tested our main predictions with helper-recipient dyads in the context of intercultural student volunteer programs in which German students (the helpers) assist incoming international students (the recipients). The recipients came from various countries coded as either culturally similar or dissimilar to Germany. The results confirmed that volunteers’ empathic feelings positively predicted recipients’ perceptions of need
responsiveness only among culturally similar dyads, while volunteers’ ego-focused concerns negatively predicted perceived need responsiveness only among culturally dissimilar dyads.
3.2.3 Recipients’ willingness to accept help. Publication 6 (single study, N = 89) focused on another recipient response by investigating the factors that affect stigmatized minority group members’ willingness to accept help. The subjects were women living with HIV (WLWH) in Germany, a group that experiences specific hardships when seeking and accepting help in the form of counselling. Specifically, counselling often takes place within majority-led service organizations, where WLWH have to disclose their health status to HIV- negative counsellors, who are outgroup members in terms of health status (e.g., Peterson, 2010). Integrating findings from counselling psychology (e.g., Cabral & Smith, 2011) with research on group-level helping (e.g., Publication 2), we examined when and why perceived group-based self-other similarities between clients and counsellors increase the acceptance of counselling services among WLWH – an issue that has received only limited attention before.
We predicted that WLWH are more willing to accept counselling offers from an HIV-positive than from an HIV-negative counsellor, because they expect them to be more empathic and trustworthy (e.g., Peterson, Rintamaki, Brashers, Goldsmith, & Neidig, 2012).
These predictions were tested with a sample of WLWH in Germany in an experiment varying the similarity between their and a fictitious counselor’s HIV status as a between-
subjects factor (i.e., the counselor was said to be HIV-positive, HIV-negative, or – in order to explore whether the proposed effect is HIV-specific – HIV-negative but Hepatitis C-positive).
The results supported our assumptions by showing that WLWH presented with an HIV- positive counselor were more willing to accept the counselling offer than WLWH presented with an HIV-negative counselor (with or without Hepatitis C), and that this effect was mediated by the counselor’s perceived empathy and trustworthiness. Additional analyses revealed that the effect of a similar health status on acceptance was especially strong among WLWH who experienced high levels of HIV-related stigmatization and only little social support, suggesting that those who are particularly at risk can profit most from having a counsellor with a similar health status.
In summary, Publications 3 to 6 further our understanding of the recipient’s role in dyadic cross-group helping. Publications 3 and 4 emphasize the important role of recipients’
perceived benevolence (especially their perceived trustworthiness). Specifically, they suggest that – even in benign intergroup encounters such as helping – potential helpers fear negative interaction expectancies (especially when needy others belong to dissimilar outgroups), and that these obstacles to helping diminish when recipients are perceived as benevolent
(Publication 3). This, in turn, seems to increase the likelihood of empathy-motivated helping towards members of dissimilar outgroups, a form of helping that is typically restricted to recipients from groups perceived as similar to the ingroup (Publication 4), and, as suggested by Publication 5, is more likely to actually match the outgroup recipient’s specific needs than helping behavior motivated by self-focused concerns. The present research thus highlights the crucial role of an outgroup target’s individual attributes in promoting positive cross-group behavior that takes into account the other’s actual needs, wishes, and concerns. Moreover, it emphasizes group-based self-other similarities as an important factor that helps members of stigmatized minority groups overcome the burdens associated with approaching an outgroup-
led organization for help (Publication 6). It thus adds to the literature on group-level help- seeking, which has mainly focused on the role of socio-structural variables (e.g., Nadler &
Halabi, 2006) or image concerns (e.g., Wakefield, Hopkins, & Greenwood, 2014), while largely neglecting similarity perceptions.
4 Conflictual Intergroup Contexts: Determinants of Positive Cross-Group Behavior in Contexts of Direct and Structural Violence
A second set of papers focuses on determinants of positive cross-group behavior in conflictual intergroup contexts characterized by direct and/or structural violence (Galtung, 1969). Direct violence comprises acts of overt intergroup aggression with members of a perpetrating group deliberately inflicting harm on members of a victimized group. Structural violence refers to illegitimate intergroup asymmetries resulting from the way the social hierarchy is arranged, providing some groups with more prestige, goods, or influence than others, and is often referred to as group inequality (e.g., Nadler & Shnabel, 2015). The goal of Publications 7 to 10 was to contribute to understanding the basic processes that determine whether members of illegitimately advantaged and disadvantaged groups, or perpetrating and victimized groups, are willing to approach each other with positive intentions.
4.1 Theoretical Background and Previous Research
One prominent approach to improving intergroup relations in conflictual contexts are interventions based on Allport’s (1954) contact hypothesis, which have been shown to be effective in contexts of structural (e.g., different ethnic groups on college campuses) and direct violence (e.g., post-war situations) (e.g., Čehajić, Brown, & Castano, 2008; Pettigrew &
Tropp, 2006). Nevertheless, such interventions typically focus on recurring positive cross- group interactions in the present. In contrast, an in-depth, long-lasting positive transformation of conflictual intergroup relations (also) requires coping with often deeply rooted pains and
identity threats resulting from intergroup transgressions or inequalities that happened (or began) in the groups’ past (e.g., Nadler & Shnabel, 2008).
Consequently, Publications 7 to 10 aimed to contribute to the emerging literature on conflicting groups’ threatened identities, and these identities’ roles in positive cross-group behavior. They are based on a relatively recent approach focusing on socio-emotional barriers to more positive relations, the needs-based-model of reconciliation (NBMR; e.g., Nadler &
Shnabel, 2015; Shnabel & Nadler, 2008; see also Barth, Siem, Aydin, Ullrich, & Shnabel, 2018). The model originally focused on contexts of direct interpersonal violence (Shnabel &
Nadler, 2008), and assumes that victims and perpetrators experience different identity threats after a transgression. While victims, harmed by acts over which they had little control, experience a threat to their identity as powerful and equal actors, perpetrators experience a threat to their identity as moral actors because they have violated conventional moral standards. These asymmetrical identity threats, in turn, lead to different socio-emotional needs: Victims experience an enhanced need for empowerment, i.e. a need to restore their sense of power, competence, and control. Perpetrators, in contrast, experience an enhanced need for social acceptance, i.e. a need to have others express understanding for them and to be (re-)included into the moral community. The NBMR states that until these needs are satisfied, they will serve as barriers to reconciliation. Thus, satisfaction of these needs by the respective other party should increase victims’ and perpetrators’ reconciliation willingness. The model’s basic tenets have been confirmed in contexts of interpersonal direct violence (Shnabel &
Nadler, 2008), and, even more importantly for this thesis, have also received initial support in contexts of direct intergroup violence (Shnabel, Nadler, Ullrich, Dovidio, & Carmi, 2009).
Publications 7 to 10 aimed to further investigate differential socio-emotional needs as basic determinants of positive cross-group behavior.
4.2 A Systematic Investigation of Group Members’ Socio-Emotional Needs in Contexts of Direct and Structural Violence
The papers in this section can be organized around three key questions: 1) Can the initial evidence on opposing parties’ differential socio-emotional needs in context of direct intergroup violence (Shnabel et al., 2009) be corroborated, and also extended to contexts of structural intergroup violence (Publications 7 and 8)? 2) How can the NBMR perspective be reconciled with a seemingly contradictory approach to opposing parties’ differential needs, the rank-based perspective (Kraus, Piff, Mendoza-Denton, Rheinschmidt, & Keltner, 2012) (Publication 9)? 3) Does a hitherto neglected variable, self-focus, serve as a mediator between the opposing parties’ needs and their willingness to reconcile (Publication 10)?
4.2.1 Testing the generalizability of differential needs across different contexts.
Publications 7 and 8 aimed to test the generalizability of the NBMR’s basic tenet of opposing parties’ differential socio-emotional needs (Shnabel & Nadler, 2008) across different
intergroup contexts. Publication 7 sought to extend the NBMR which was originally developed for contexts of direct violence, to intergroup contexts marked by structural
violence, i.e. by status inequalities rather than overt aggression. We proposed that the needs of members of advantaged and disadvantaged groups diverge in a similar manner to those of members of perpetrating and victimized groups (see also Nadler & Shnabel, 2011). Initial evidence for this assumption comes from work showing that members of advantaged
(disadvantaged) groups report more favorable attitudes towards the other group after receiving an accepting (empowering) message (Shnabel, Ullrich, Nadler, Dovidio, & Aydin, 2013).
Publication 7 aimed to extend these results by investigating under which conditions the logic of the NBMR can be applied to contexts of structural violence. Building on social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979; 1986), we argued that groups’ different positions in the social hierarchy only translate into divergent needs when status differences are perceived as
illegitimate, i.e., as conflicting with values of justice, fairness, or equity (Turner & Brown, 1978) – an assumption that has not been investigated before.
We tested the moderating role of perceived legitimacy in two experiments. In Study 1 (N = 130), we manipulated status (disadvantaged, advantaged) and perceived legitimacy of status differences (low, high) in a setting with artificial groups ad-hoc created, allowing us to ensure that pre-existing group stereotypes would not influence our findings. The results
confirmed that members of the advantaged (disadvantaged) group experienced a stronger need to be socially accepted (empowered) by members of the other group than members of the disadvantaged (advantaged) group, but, as expected, only when status differences were perceived as illegitimate. Study 2 (N = 169) replicated these results with naturalistic groups based on occupations (with participants being prospective clinical psychologists who were compared to either social workers in the advantaged condition or physicians in the
disadvantaged condition), and with different operationalizations of status (Study 1: alleged differences in groups’ performance; Study 2: differences in occupational prestige) and
legitimacy (Study 1: induced by the experimenter; Study 2: embedded in the social structure), thus speaking for the generalizability of our findings.
Publication 8 aimed to further corroborate and extend the basic tenets of the NBMR (Shnabel & Nadler, 2008) and the findings from Publication 7. Specifically, we tested the assumption of diverging needs in a variety of different intergroup contexts of direct and structural violence. Moreover, while previous research has relied on measures of needs that were created ad-hoc for each study (thus reducing comparability across studies), we used a rigorous, previously validated measure, the Circumplex Scales of Intergroup Goals (CSIG;
Locke, 2014). These scales assess people’s agentic (acting and appearing confident and assertive) and communal (acting and appearing trustworthy and warm) goals for intergroup interactions, which are closely linked to their empowerment and social acceptance needs.
Study 1 (N = 391) aimed to demonstrate the effects of a person’s ingroup’s role or position in society on their intergroup interaction goals or socio-emotional needs across a variety of different intergroup contexts, including contexts of direct and structural violence.
We used subjects’ actual memberships in real-world groups to assign them to one of ten conditions resulting from a 2(role: member of advantaged/perpetrating group, member of disadvantaged/victimized group) x 5(context: discrimination against immigrants in Germany [structural violence], right-wing violence [direct violence], international transgression [direct violence], exploitative consumption [direct violence], gender discrimination [structural violence]) design. The results generally confirmed that subjects reminded of their ingroup’s illegitimate disadvantage or victimized role expressed higher agentic goals (empowerment needs) and lower communal goals (social acceptance needs) when thinking about an interaction with members of the other group than subjects reminded of their ingroup’s illegitimate advantage or perpetrating role.
Study 2 (N = 122) aimed to replicate the results of Study 1 in yet another context of structural violence, and to examine whether the effect of the status of a person’s ingroup (illegitimately disadvantaged vs. advantaged) on intergroup interaction goals in a specific context is influenced by their general dispositional preferences for pursuing agentic and communal goals. We measured subjects’ dispositional preferences on an individual level (with the German version of Locke’s Circumplex Scales of Interpersonal Values, 2000;
Thomas, Locke, & Strauß, 2012) one week before they participated in an experiment in which we used the status manipulation from Study 2 of Publication 7 (based on different
occupational groups) and assessed their intergroup goals subsequently (using the CSIG;
Locke, 2014). The results again confirmed that subjects in the disadvantaged condition reported higher agentic goals (empowerment needs) and lower communal goals (social acceptance needs) for intergroup interactions than subjects in the advantaged condition.
Importantly, these results did not change when controlling for the direct and interactive effects of subjects’ dispositional preferences for agentic vs. communal goals.
4.2.2 Reconciling NBMR-based and rank-based perspectives. Publication 9 focuses on a specific status dimension: social class. This allowed us to replicate findings from
Publications 7 and 8 in yet another context of structural violence, and, most importantly, to test two seemingly contradictory perspectives on the effects of social class on people’s needs, the NBMR (Shnabel & Nadler, 2008) and a rank-based approach to social class (e.g. Kraus et al., 2012). Based on the NBMR, one would expect (illegitimately) high-class (low-class) members to experience higher communal goals or acceptance needs (agentic goals or
empowerment needs) in interclass interactions. The rank-based approach predicts exactly the opposite. Briefly, it states that high-class members, because they have more control, access to resources, and independence from others, have more agentic self-concepts, and thus express higher agentic goals, while low-class members, because they have less control, fewer resources, and must rely more strongly on mutual aid, have more communal self-concepts, and thus express higher communal goals (e.g., Kraus & Mendes, 2014). Publication 9 aimed to reconcile the two perspectives by distinguishing between the social class of the actor and the target. Specifically, the rank-based perspective assumes that the differential goals of high- and low-class members develop through repeated experiences and eventually become habitual in interactions with someone from the same class or other people in general (Kraus et al., 2012), thus postulating actor class effects in interactions with ingroup members or
unspecified others. The NBMR, in contrast, postulates target class effects in interactions with outgroup members such that actors should more strongly endorse communal (agentic) goals towards illegitimately lower-class (higher-class) targets, regardless of their own social class.
We tested these predictions in three preregistered studies. Study 1a (N = 515) and 1b (a direct replication; N = 456) used a 2(actor class: low, high) x 3(nature of the target: higher- /lower-class outgroup, ingroup, unspecified other) design. To manipulate social class, subjects
were first asked to compare themselves with either extremely low-class (in the high-class condition) or high-class (in the low-class condition) targets (Piff, Kraus, Côté, Cheng, &
Keltner, 2010). They were then asked to indicate their goals when imagining an interaction with either illegitimately higher-/lower-class outgroup members, ingroup members, or unspecified others. The results support the NBMR perspective: In the outgroup conditions, subjects who imagined interacting with higher-class members exhibited higher agentic and lower communal goals than subjects who imagined interacting with lower-class members.
The rank-based perspective received only partial support in Study 1a that could not be replicated in Study 1b.
Study 2 (N = 1,052) was specifically designed to put the NBMR perspective to a more rigorous test while simultaneously addressing some potential methodological limitations of Studies 1a and 1b that resulted from our aim to establish ideal conditions for observing actor class effects and target class effects (for details, see Publication 9). This resulted in a 2(actor class: low, high) x 2(target class: lower, higher) x 2(level of goal pursuit: individual,
collective) between-subjects design. The results again supported the NBMR perspective:
Subjects endorsed higher agentic (communal) goals toward higher-class (lower-class) targets than towards lower-class (higher-class) targets, independent of their own social class (i.e., actor class), and of the level of goal pursuit.
In summary, the results of the three studies strongly support the NBMR perspective, but only partially support the rank-based perspective. We acknowledge that this might be partly due to the fact that it is easier to manipulate target than actor class. Still, the consistent support for the NBMR perspective clearly suggests that low- and high-class members
interaction goals or socio-emotional needs do not primarily depend on their own social class (as suggested by the rank-based approach), but on the social classes of both, actor and target.
4.2.3 Introducing self-focus as a mediator. Publication 10 aimed to test a specific theoretical extension of the NBMR (Shnabel & Nadler, 2008). Specifically, we argued that, in
contexts of direct violence, reconciliation willingness is affected not only by the mutual satisfaction of victims’ and perpetrators’ needs (as proposed by the NBMR), but also by their differential needs per se through their effects on victims’ and perpetrators’ focus of attention – a mechanism that has not been systematically investigated before. We assumed that victims’
heightened empowerment need directs their attention toward the individual or collective self, its suffering, and its primary goals, such as restoring agency or wellbeing. Perpetrators’
heightened acceptance need, in contrast, should increase their awareness of others and their motivation to affiliate with them (see also Mazziotta, Feuchte, Gausel, & Nadler, 2014;
Twenge, Catanese, & Baumeister, 2003). We thus expected victims to exhibit a stronger self- focus than perpetrators, which should in turn lead to less willingness to reconcile (e.g. Exline, Baumeister, Zell, Kraft, & Witvliet, 2008).
We conducted three experiments. Studies 1 and 2 (overall N = 508) varied subjects’
role (victim, perpetrator) in an imagined interpersonal transgression. The results confirmed that victims exhibited a stronger self-focus than perpetrators (Studies 1 and 2), and that this effect was in fact due to the stronger dominance of the empowerment over the acceptance need victims experienced (Study 1). Moreover, victims were less willing to reconcile, and this effect was mediated by their increased self-focus (Study 2). Study 3 (N = 232; preregistered) aimed to replicate and extend these findings in an intergroup context, and is thus particularly relevant for this thesis. The results confirmed that subjects who belonged to an (allegedly) victimized group were less willing to reconcile than subjects who belonged to an (allegedly) perpetrating group, and that this effect was sequentially mediated by victim group members’
stronger self-focus and reduced motivation to take the other party’s needs into account.
In summary, the research described in this section advances our understanding of the basic determinants of positive cross-group behavior in conflictual intergroup contexts by applying key assumptions of the NBMR (Shnabel & Nadler, 2008) – which originally focused
on contexts of direct interpersonal violence – to a variety of conflictual intergroup contexts, including contexts of direct (Publications 8 and 10) and structural violence (Publications 7 to 9). Apart from demonstrating the role of peoples’ differential needs in a variety of different intergroup contexts, the present research also extends the NMBR in theoretically important ways. First, it shows under which conditions the model’s tenets can be transferred to contexts of structural violence – when status differences are perceived as illegitimate (Publication 7).
Second, it integrates two formerly isolated research strands, the NBMR and the rank-based approach (e.g., Kraus et al., 2012), thus helping explain a number of previous contradictory findings on the differential needs of members of advantaged vs. disadvantaged groups (e.g., Dubois, Rucker, & Galinsky, 2015; Korndörfer, Egloff, & Schmukle, 2015). Third, it points to an additional determinant of opposing parties’ willingness to reconcile (beyond mutual need satisfaction): differences in their focus of attention (Publication 10). Acknowledging these differences can also help us understand the frequent finding that victims are less willing to reconcile and seek contact than perpetrators (e.g., Mazziotta et al., 2014). Still, it remains to be tested whether such differences in focus can also be observed in contexts of structural violence, i.e. among members of illegitimately advantaged and disadvantaged groups.
5 Discussion
Recent research has revealed that, in five European countries, positive contact across national boundaries was reported to occur about three times more frequently than negative contact (Graf, Paolini, & Rubin, 2014). In line with this and other observations, social psychologists have become increasingly interested in understanding the processes that underlie genuinely positive cross-group behavior (e.g., Publication 1; Siem et al., 2016). In this section, I will first delineate how the two lines of empirical work that form this thesis (Publications 3 to 10) contribute to this development on a general level. I will then outline two
possible ways of integrating the two lines by referring to two recent works (Publications 11 and 12).
5.1 Research on Benign Contexts: Implications for Positive Cross-Group Behavior As described above, Publications 3 to 6 extend previous work on dyadic cross-group helping (e.g., Siem & Stürmer, 2012; Stürmer et al., 2005; 2006) in important ways by focusing on how recipient-related variables are affected by perceptions of group-based self- other (dis)similarities, a question that has been relatively neglected in previous research. One important conclusion from these studies is that perceptions of others’ benevolence, especially of their trustworthiness, seem to be a crucial determinant not only of people’s helping
decisions (especially when perceived group-based dissimilarities were high) (Publications 3 and 4), but also of recipients’ willingness to accept a helping offer (Publication 6).
Our explanation for the primary role of perceived trustworthiness is that it can help to solve the approach-avoidance conflict people often experience when faced with the decision of whether to help an outgroup member (or to approach an outgroup member for help) (see Publications 2 and 3). This reasoning is in line with other perspectives suggesting that others’
perceived trustworthiness – more so than sociability or competence – is highly informative regarding the essential question of whether they should be approached (because they represent an opportunity for the self) or avoided (because they pose a threat) (Brambilla & Leach, 2014;
López-Rodríguez & Zagefka, 2015). Thus, an outgroup member’s perceived trustworthiness might play an important role not only in dyadic cross-group helping, but generally in positive cross-group behavior that involves some form of approach-avoidance conflict. This is
probably the case in many benign cross-group contexts in which factors such as humanitarian norms (e.g., Gaertner & Dovidio, 1977) or a curiosity for the “other” (e.g., Publication 1) prompt people to approach outgroup members, while, at the same time, negative interaction expectancies due to intergroup anxiety or negative stereotypes (e.g., Mallett et al., 2008) prompt people to avoid them, or to be at least “on guard”. Moreover, trustworthiness
perceptions should become even more important the more the positive cross-group behavior increases one’s own vulnerability or risk of being exploited (Yamagishi, 2001). Helping behavior can carry such risks (because it includes investing one’s own valued resources), as can behaviors such as disclosing personal information to outgroup members or letting them enter one’s “personal space” (e.g., one’s home), which are considered key facilitators of positive intergroup relations (e.g., Ensari & Miller, 2002; Turner, Hewstone, & Voci, 2007).
Future research testing such ideas could produce important practical knowledge, for instance by helping identify intergroup contexts and behaviors for which trustworthiness perceptions are especially relevant and should thus be targeted through trust-building interventions.
5.2 Research on Conflictual Contexts: Implications for Positive Cross-Group Behavior As noted above, Publications 7 to 10 provide clear evidence that members of opposing groups experience differential socio-emotional needs after a transgression or when
illegitimate status differences are salient. Knowing about these needs can be an important stepping-stone to positive cross-group behavior in at least two ways. First, as proposed by the NBMR (Shnabel & Nadler, 2008), satisfaction of these differential needs by the respective other party should increase both parties’ willingness to engage in positive cross-group behavior (for indirect evidence, see Shnabel et al., 2009; Shabel et al., 2013). Second, differences in the parties’ foci of attention resulting from their differential needs might be an additional factor affecting their willingness to approach each other with positive intentions (Publication 10). Nevertheless, future research still needs to corroborate these initial findings by systematically investigating how the differential needs of members of opposing groups actually translate into different forms of positive intergroup behavior such as reconciliation, contact seeking, or solidarity.
On a broader theoretical level, our work clearly supports a contextual perspective on intergroup processes. Based on the social identity approach (Tajfel & Turner, 1986; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987), and in line with the NBMR (Shnabel & Nadler,
2008), we argue that, in conflictual intergroup contexts, encounters with the other party promote categorizations into perpetrating or illegitimately advantaged and victimized or illegitimately disadvantaged groups. People’s needs then align with those of their ingroup in the specific intergroup context. Three findings are particularly telling here. First, we found that members of one and the same group (prospective clinical psychologists) experienced different socio-emotional needs depending on whether they were placed in an advantaged or disadvantaged status position (by comparing them either to social workers or to physicians) (Publications 7 and 8, Study 2 of each). Second, our research (Publication 8, Study 2) shows that intergroup context and associated roles shape people’s agentic and communal interaction goals (their empowerment and social acceptance needs) regardless of their preexisting general preferences for those goals. Third, the results of Publication 9 suggest that the socio- emotional needs of low- and high-class members may not be as deeply rooted as proposed in the rank-based perspective (e.g., Kraus et al., 2012); instead, in line with social identity-based perspectives such as the NBMR, they change with different social circumstances. These findings also have important practical implications, as they suggest that need patterns that critically contribute to the maintenance of social inequality and impede positive intergroup behavior can in fact be changed through interventions (see also Markus, 2017).
Our research can also be integrated with other approaches that aim to improve
intergroup relations in conflictual intergroup contexts. Combining interventions based on the NBMR (Shnabel & Nadler, 2008) with intergroup contact interventions might be particularly promising (see also Nadler, 2002a; Nadler & Shnabel, 2008). Specifically, while contact interventions might not be sufficient for an in-depth, lasting positive transformation of
intergroup relations due to their focus on positive cross-group interactions in the present, they can help establish necessary levels of trust as a first step (e.g., Hewstone et al., 2014; see also instrumental reconciliation, Nadler, 2002a). Subsequently, NBMR-informed interventions could set in to address the identity threats and related socio-emotional needs resulting from
intergroup transgressions or inequalities that happened (or began) in the groups’ past. Such combined interventions can also help reduce the problem that minority members often find contact interventions less satisfying than majority members because empowerment-related issues are typically neglected during contact (e.g., Saguy, Dovidio, & Pratto, 2008).
5.3 Towards an Integration of the Two Research Lines
So far, I have maintained the distinction between benign contexts, specifically contexts of dyadic cross-group helping, and conflictual contexts introduced at the beginning of this thesis. This distinction is useful, as it reflects the fact that these contexts differ
substantially in terms of the salience of past or present intergroup violence (see Nadler, 2016, for a similar distinction): While in conflictual contexts illegitimate status differences
(structural violence) or overt intergroup aggression (direct violence) are salient and guide peoples’ experiences and behavior, they are less (or even not) salient in benign contexts (although they can certainly exist in such contexts as well). This is not to say that experiences and behaviors in benign contexts are all positive: As stated above, due to perceptions of
“otherness”, people often still hold negative interaction expectancies in such contexts (e.g., Mallett et al., 2008, Pearson et al., 2008) – but to a lesser extent than in conflictual ones.
The intergroup contexts and operationalizations used in our studies also clearly reflect this distinction. Specifically, in the studies focusing on conflictual contexts, we made
illegitimate status differences or intergroup aggressions explicitly salient to subjects (e.g., by reminding them of past or present intergroup transgressions or inequalities, or by creating such inequalities or transgressions in the specific study context). In the studies investigating dyadic cross-group helping, in contrast, we refrained from using groups with a history of aggression, and, when considering groups with illegitimate status differences (e.g., majority society members and immigrants), we did not explicitly increase the salience of these differences. Moreover, subjects held clearly benign individual roles in these studies (e.g., volunteers or counselors in real or imagined cross-cultural contexts).
However, although this dichotomy provides a useful framework, it should not be taken to mean that cross-group helping cannot take place in conflictual intergroup contexts, or that socio-emotional needs are irrelevant for cross-group helping. In fact, there is good reason to take helpers’ and recipients’ roles and positions in society and their resulting needs into account when investigating cross-group helping. Below, I will outline two possible ways of integrating the two research lines by referring to two recent works (Publications 11 and 12) (for another integrative approach, see SimanTov-Nachlieli, Shnabel, & Halabi, 2016).
A first potential integration could shed new light on work informed by the “intergroup helping relations as status relations” model (e.g., Halabi & Nadler, 2017; Nadler, 2002b). This work suggests that, when status differences are perceived as illegitimate and unstable,
members of disadvantaged groups prefer to receive autonomy- over dependency-oriented help by members of advantaged groups, while members of advantaged groups prefer to provide dependency-oriented help to members of disadvantaged groups. While the model explains this pattern with the disadvantaged’s desire to increase, and the advantaged’s desire to maintain, their group’s position in society, their differential socio-emotional needs might provide an alternative explanation. Specifically, receiving autonomy-oriented help should be more in line with disadvantaged group members’ heightened empowerment need than receiving
dependency-oriented help. Similarly, providing dependency-oriented (vs. autonomy-oriented) help might be better suited to satisfy the advantaged’s heightened social acceptance need, because it perpetuates the need for help and thus provides continuous opportunities to prove one’s morality and prosociality. Publication 11, while not specifically designed to test these predictions, provides tentative support for them. Specifically, in Study 1 (N = 143) which investigated different predictors of German helpers’ engagement in different forms of help toward refugees, we found that subjects’ willingness to engage in dependency-oriented (but not autonomy-oriented) help was positively predicted by their social image concerns, a potential indicator of a heightened social acceptance need. Study 2 provides some indirect
evidence for the assumed role of empowerment needs among recipients from disadvantaged groups by showing that refugees (N = 80) evaluated receiving autonomy-oriented help more positively than receiving dependency-oriented help. Whether this evaluation is based on their heightened need for empowerment remains to be tested, however.
A second potential integration focuses on the question whether engaging in (cross- group) helping is in fact an effective means for members of advantaged groups to satisfy their heightened social acceptance need. Satisfaction of this need, unlike the empowerment need, always requires that others – members of the disadvantaged group but also observers or members of third parties (e.g., Harth & Shnabel, 2015) – recognize one’s attempts to gain social acceptance, and grant it. However, do others actually react in these ways to advantaged group members’ helping activities? Two recent studies (overall N = 670) (Publication 12) provide some initial answers. One aim of these studies was to investigate the effect of the helper’s status in society on observers’ attributions of egoistic motives to the helper. In both studies, we presented subjects (i.e., observers) with a (fictitious) media report about a person volunteering to help refugees in Germany, and varied, among other things, the helper’s socio- economic status (SES; lower, higher). In line with predictions (derived from the stereotype content model, e.g., Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002), we found that observers ascribed more egoistic motives to higher- than to lower-SES helpers, which, in turn, lowered their
willingness to join the helpers’ cause. These findings suggest that engaging in (cross-group) helping might not necessarily grant advantaged group members more social acceptance.
Future research can help identify factors able to reduce this mismatch between the reactions people hope to receive from others and the reactions they actually get, and thus contribute to a better understanding of the dynamics underlying positive intergroup relations.
That a more dynamic perspective is necessary to gain a better understanding of the pathways to positive cross-group behavior can be considered a general conclusion of the work that forms this thesis. These pathways are reciprocal and iterative, such that the involved
parties repeatedly shape each other’s experiences and behaviors (see also Buckingham,
Emery, Godsay, Brodsky, & Scheibler, 2018). Capturing such dynamics, for instance by using designs that make it possible to observe patterns over time in the responses of the relevant parties, is an important task for future research on the processes that lead people to approach each other across group boundaries.
5 References
Allport, G. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
Antweiler, C. (2009). Was ist den Menschen gemeinsam? Über Kultur und Kulturen [What do humans have in common? About culture and cultures] (2nd ed.). Darmstadt, Germany:
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2007). Empirical, theoretical, and practical advantages of the HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 150 –166. doi:10.1177/1088868306294907
Barth, M., Siem, B., Aydin, A., & Ullrich, J., & Shnabel, N. (2018). Wie kann Versöhnung gefördert werden? – Das Bedürfnisbasierte Modell der Versöhnung. Inquisitive Mind, 4.
Batson, C. D. (1991). The altruism question: Toward a social psychological answer.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brambilla, M., & Leach, C. W. (2014). On the importance of being moral: The distinctive role of morality in social judgement. Social Cognition, 32, 397-408. doi:
10.1521/soco.2014.32.4.397
Brewer, M. B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive- motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 307–324. doi:10.1037/0033- 2909.86.2.307
Buckingham, S. L., Emery, L., Godsay, S., Brodsky, A. E., & Scheibler, J. E. (2018). ‘You opened my mind’: Latinx immigrant and receiving community interactional dynamics in the United States. Journal of Community Psychology, 46, 171-186. doi:
10.1002/jcop.21931
Cabral, R. R., & Smith, T. B. (2011). Racial/ethnic matching of clients and therapists in mental health services: A meta-analytic review of preferences, perceptions, and outcomes. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58, 537–554. doi: 10.1037/a0025266
Čehajić, S., Brown, R. J., & Castano, E. (2008). Forgive and forget? Antecedents and consequences of intergroup forgiveness in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Political Psychology, 29, 351-367. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2008.00634.x
Davies, K., & Aron, A. (2016). Friendship development and intergroup attitudes: The role of interpersonal and intergroup friendship processes. Journal of Social Issues, 72, 489–
510.doi: 10.1111/josi.12178
Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., Validzic, A., Matoka, K., Johnson, B., & Frazier, S. (1997).
Extending the benefits of recategorization: Evaluation, self-disclosure, and helping.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 401-420. doi: 10.1006/jesp.1997.1327 Dovidio, J. F., Hewstone, M., Glick, P., & Esses, V. M. (Eds.). (2010). The SAGE handbook
of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination. London: Sage Publications.
Dubois, D., Rucker, D. D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2015). Social class, power, and selfishness:
When and why upper and lower class individuals behave unethically. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108, 436-449. doi: 10.1037/pspi0000008 Ensari, N., & Miller, N. (2002). The outgroup must not be so bad after all: The effect of
disclosure, typicality, and salience on intergroup bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 313–329. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.83.2.313
Esses, V. M., Jackson, L. M., Dovidio, J. F., & Hodson, G. (2005). Instrumental relations among groups: Group competition, conflict, and prejudice. In J. F. Dovidio, P. Glick,
& L. A. Rudman (Eds.), On the nature of prejudice: Fifty years after Allport (pp. 227- 243). Oxford, England, Blackwell.
Exline, J. J., Baumeister, R. F., Zell, A. L., Kraft, A. J., & Witvliet, C. V. O. (2008). Not so innocent: Does seeing one's own capability for wrongdoing predict forgiveness?
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 495–515. doi: 10.1037/0022- 3514.94.3.495
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878-902. doi:
10.1037//0022-3514.82.6.878
Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (1977). The subtlety of White racism, arousal, and helping behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 691–707. doi:
10.1037/0022-3514.35.10.691
Galtung, J. (1969). Violence, peace and peace research. Journal of Peace Research, 3, 176–
191. doi: 10.1177/002234336900600301
Graf, S., Paolini, S., & Rubin, M. (2014). Negative intergroup contact is more influential, but positive intergroup contact is more common: Assessing contact prominence and contact prevalence in five Central European countries. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 536–547. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2052
Halabi, S., & Nadler, A. (2017). The intergroup status as helping relations model: Giving, seeking and receiving help as tools to maintain or challenge social inequality. In E.
van Leeuwen & H. Zagefka (Eds.), Intergroup helping (pp. 205-221). Heidelberg:
Springer.
Harth, N. S., & Shnabel, N. (2015). Third-party intervention in intergroup reconciliation: The role of neutrality and common identity with the other conflict party. Group Processes
& Intergroup Relations, 18, 676–695. doi: 10.1177/1368430215583151
Hewstone, M., Lolliot, S., Swart, H., Myers, E., Voci, A., Al Ramiah, A., & Cairns, E.
(2014). Intergroup contact and intergroup conflict. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 20, 39-53. doi: 10.1037/a0035582
Jonas, K. J., & Mummendey, A. (2008). Positive intergroup relations: From reduced outgroup rejection to outgroup support. In U. Wagner, L. R. Tropp, G. Finchilescu, & C.
Tredoux (Eds.), Improving intergroup relations: Building on the legacy of Thomas F.
Pettigrew (pp. 210-224). Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell.
Jones, E. E. (1998). Major developments in five decades of social psychology. In D. T.
Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 3-57). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Korndörfer, M., Egloff, B., & Schmukle, S. C. (2015). A large scale test of the effect of social class on prosocial behavior. PLoS ONE 10: e0133193. doi:
10.1371/journal.pone.0133193
Kraus, M. W., & Mendes, W. B. (2014). Sartorial symbols of social class elicit class- consistent behavioral and physiological responses: a dyadic approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 2330-2340. doi: 10.1037/xge0000023 Kraus, M. W., Piff, P. K., Mendoza-Denton, R., Rheinschmidt, M. L., & Keltner, D. (2012).
Social class, solipsism, and contextualism: how the rich are different from the poor.
Psychological Review, 119, 546-572. doi: 10.1037/a0028756
Locke, K. D. (2000). Circumplex Scales of Interpersonal Values: Reliability, validity, and applicability to interpersonal problems and personality disorders. Journal of Personality Assessment, 75, 249-267. doi: 10.1207/S15327752JPA7502_6
Locke, K. D. (2014). Circumplex Scales of Intergroup Goals: An interpersonal circle model of goals for interactions between groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 433-449. doi: 10.1177/0146167213514280
López-Rodríguez, L., & Zagefka, H. (2015). The effects of stereotype content on
acculturation preferences and prosocial tendencies: The prominent role of morality.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 45, 36-46. doi:
10.1016/j.ijintrel.2014.12.006
Mallett, R. K., Wilson, T. D., & Gilbert, D. T. (2008). Expect the unexpected: Failure to anticipate similarities leads to an intergroup forecasting error. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 265-277. doi :10.1037/0022-3514.94.2.94.2.265
Markus, H. R. (2017). In this together: Doing and undoing inequality and social class divides.
Journal of Social Issues, 73, 211–221. doi: 10.1111/josi.12212
Mazziotta, A., Feuchte, F., Gausel, N., & Nadler, A. (2014). Does remembering past ingroup harmdoing promote postwar cross-group contact? Insights from a field-experiment in Liberia. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 43–52. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.1986 Nadler, A. (2002a). Post resolution processes: Instrumental and socio-emotional routes to
reconciliation. In G. Salomon & B. Nevo (Eds.), Peace education: The concept, principles, and practices around the world (pp. 127-143). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Nadler, A. (2002b). Inter-group helping relations as power relations: Maintaining or challenging social dominance between groups through helping. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 487-502. doi: 10.1111/1540-4560.00272
Nadler, A. (2016). The historical and relational contexts of the study of positive behavior across group boundaries. Journal of Social Issues, 72, 601-613. doi:
10.1111/josi.12184
Nadler, A., & Halabi, S. (2006). Intergroup helping as status relations: Effects of status stability, identification, and type of help on receptivity to high-status group’s help.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 97–110. doi: 10.1037/0022- 3514.91.1.97
Nadler, A. & Shnabel, N. (2008). Instrumental and socio-emotional paths to intergroup reconciliation: and the need based model of socio-emotional reconciliation. In: A.
Nadler, T. Malloy & J.D. Fisher (Eds.), Social Psychology of Intergroup Reconciliation (pp. 37-56). New York: Oxford University Press.
