Mobilized or marginalized? Understanding low-status groups' responses to social justice efforts led by high-status groups.

Members of high-status groups (e.g., men) often lead social justice efforts that seek to benefit low-status groups (e.g., women), but little is known about how observers respond to such instances of visible and influential solidarity. We presented information about a nonprofit organization seeking to address gender (Study 1, N = 198) or racial (Study 2, N = 216) inequality, in which the leadership team was manipulated to include a numerical majority of either high-status group members or low-status group members. Members of low-status groups who read about the majority high-status leadership team reported lower levels of collective action intentions, compared with those who read about the majority low-status leadership team. Mediation analyses (Studies 1 and 2) and an experimental-causal-chain design (Study 3, N = 405) showed that lower collective action intentions in response to the majority high-status leadership team were mediated by participants' perception of a specific problem presented by high-status group leaders (lower awareness of inequality) and lower levels of hope. Study 4 (N = 555) demonstrated that low-status group members responded more negatively to a majority high-status leadership team in an organization seeking to benefit their low-status ingroup (solidarity context), compared with organizations seeking to benefit other groups (nonsolidarity contexts). Results provide the first evidence that the presence of influential high-status group leaders can discourage members of low-status groups from joining a social justice effort that seeks to benefit their ingroup, and that these negative responses extend beyond preferences predicted by frameworks of ingroup bias and role congruity. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

The promise of a better group future: Cognitive alternatives increase students' self-efficacy and academic performance.

Drawing on classic social identity theorizing (Tajfel, Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations, London, UK, Academic Press, 1978), we propose that low-status minority group members' self-efficacy and performance on intellectual tasks can be enhanced by prompting them to believe in a better future for their group (i.e., increasing awareness of cognitive alternatives to the existing low-status position). Study 1 manipulated cognitive alternatives among 157 migrant workers' children in China, showing that self-efficacy was enhanced in the high compared to the low cognitive alternative condition. Study 2 extended this experimental finding among 114 migrant workers' children: Participants in the high cognitive alternative condition performed better on mathematics and attention tasks than did participants in the low cognitive alternative condition. Results highlight the power of believing in a better future for the collective as a means of enhancing self-efficacy and educational outcomes among members of disadvantaged groups.

The more (and the more compatible) the merrier: multiple group memberships and identity compatibility as predictors of adjustment after life transitions.

Two longitudinal studies considered the role of social identity factors in predicting well-being after students' transition to university. The transition (assessed before starting university and after 2 months at university) had a detrimental effect on well-being, but identification as a university student improved well-being. Both studies showed that the social context in which the change occurred either facilitated or hindered university identification. Specifically, perceived compatibility between old and new identities and having multiple group memberships (which were each influenced by social class background, Study 2) both increased likelihood of identification with the new group. These predictive relationships remained statistically reliable when controlling for other factors relevant to the transition. The results suggest that life transitions are difficult partly because they entail changes in group membership. Both studies also demonstrate that identification with a new group can help buffer individuals from the negative well-being consequences of change.

Angry opposition to government redress: when the structurally advantaged perceive themselves as relatively deprived.

We examined (structurally advantaged) non-Aborigines' willingness for political action against government redress to (structurally disadvantaged) Aborigines in Australia. We found non-Aborigines opposed to government redress to be high in symbolic racism and to perceive their ingroup as deprived relative to Aborigines. However, only perceived relative deprivation was associated with feelings of group-based anger. In addition, consistent with relative deprivation and emotion theory, it was group-based anger that fully mediated a willingness for political action against government redress. Thus, the specific group-based emotion of anger explained why symbolic racism and relative deprivation promoted a willingness for political action against government redress to a structurally disadvantaged out-group. Theoretical and political implications are discussed.

Anger and guilt about ingroup advantage explain the willingness for political action.

Three studies examined non-Aboriginal Australians' guilt and anger about their ingroup's advantage over structurally disadvantaged Aborigines. Study 1 showed that participants who perceived their ingroup as relatively advantaged perceived this inequality as unfair and felt guilt and anger about it. Anger, and to a lesser degree guilt, predicted the willingness to engage in political action regarding ingroup advantage. Study 2 showed both guilt and anger to be relatively self-focused because both were associated with appraising the ingroup's (rather than the government's) discrimination as responsible for ingroup advantage. Study 3 examined on participants especially willing to engage in political action to bring about systemic compensation to Aborigines. Anger about ingroup advantage was a potent predictor. Although guilt was associated with the abstract goal of systemic compensation, guilt did not explain willingness for political action. Results underline the importance of examining specific group-based emotions in intergroup relations.

Understanding affirmative action.

Affirmative action is a controversial and often poorly understood policy. It is also a policy that has been widely studied by social scientists. In this review, we outline how affirmative action operates in employment and education settings and consider the major points of controversy. In addition, we detail the contributions of psychologists and other social scientists in helping to demonstrate why affirmative action is needed; how it can have unintended negative consequences; and how affirmative action programs can be most successful. We also review how psychologists have examined variations in people's attitudes toward affirmative action, in part as a means for testing different theories of social behavior.