Consequences of interminority ingroup rejection for group identification and well-being.

OBJECTIVES: The rejection-identification model (RIM; Branscombe et al. 1999) suggests group identification mitigates the negative effects of perceived discrimination on psychological well-being. The RIM has not been applied to instances of interminority ingroup rejection-discrimination by one's ingroup toward another of their ingroups (e.g., a gay Black American perceiving racial discrimination within his LGBTQ+ community). We address two questions: (a) do the predicted relationships between constructs in the RIM replicate for interminority ingroup rejection? (b) How does interminority ingroup rejection relate to identification with the discriminating ingroup? METHODS: We test these questions using structural equation modeling (SEM) on a secondary dataset including respondents (N = 3,300) who identify as members of both a racial and sexual minority. RESULTS: Our analysis produced two key findings. First, replicating past RIM research, we show that perceived discrimination-whether heterosexist or racist in nature-predicts worse well-being and higher identification with the target group. Furthermore, we demonstrate an indirect effect such that discrimination predicts higher group identification and this is positively related to well-being. Second, the interminority ingroup rejection-identification paths varied as a function of whether discrimination was heterosexist or racist. Greater heterosexism within one's racial community predicted greater racial ingroup identification; however, racism within one's sexual minority community was not a significant predictor of sexual minority group identification. CONCLUSIONS: We discuss implications of interminority ingroup rejection for people who belong to intersecting minority groups and make recommendations for extending research on this issue. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Non-Indigenous Canadians' and Americans' moral expectations of Indigenous peoples in light of the negative impacts of the Indian Residential Schools.

The historical trauma associated with the Indian Residential School (IRS) system was recently brought to the awareness of the Canadian public. Two studies investigated how the salience of this collective victimization impacted non-Indigenous Canadians' expectations that Indigenous peoples ought to derive psychological benefits (e.g., learned to appreciate life) and be morally obligated to help others. Study 1 found that modern racism was related to perceptions that Indigenous peoples psychologically benefitted from the IRS experience, which in turn, predicted greater expectations of moral obligation. Study 2 replicated the relations among racism, benefit finding, and moral obligation among non-Indigenous Canadians (historical perpetrators of the harm done) and Americans (third-party observers). Americans were uniquely responsive to a portrayal of Indigenous peoples in Canada as strong versus vulnerable. Factors that distance observers from the victim (such as racism or third-party status) appear to influence perceptions of finding benefit in victimization experiences and expectations of moral obligation.

Group-Based Emotions and Support for Reparations: A Meta-analysis.

In the aftermath of intergroup harm, victim groups often claim rights for restitution. Research has assessed how members of perpetrator groups respond to such claims, revealing that group-based guilt, shame, and anger can predict support for reparations. Though they have distinct foci, these group-based emotions are based on appraisals of ingroup harmdoing and victim group disadvantage as illegitimate. This meta-analysis investigates the relationship between these three group-based emotions and support for reparations, defined as symbolic or material policies that address historical injustices or the legacies thereof. An overall estimate based on 101 effect sizes from 58 samples, N = 10,305, showed a strong effect, r = .44, and revealed no significant difference between the three types of emotions. Moderator analyses revealed that the relationship between group-based guilt and reparations was weaker when the reparations required effort and stronger when the victims were Indigenous people; for shame, the relationship was weaker when the reparations required effort and stronger when the reparations contained symbolic elements; and for anger, the relationship was stronger when the victims were Indigenous people. Future research can further disentangle the conceptual overlap between these group-based emotions by explicitly testing heretofore under-examined yet important facets of intergroup contexts such as the timeframe of harm and the nature and meaning of the proposed reparations.

Perceptual harmony in judgments of group prototypicality and intragroup respect.

We test common sense psychology of intragroup relations whereby people assume that intragroup respect and ingroup prototypicality are positively related. In Study 1a, participants rated a group member as more prototypical if they learned that group member was highly respected rather than disrespected. In Study 1b, participants rated a group member as more respected by other group members if they learned that group member was prototypical rather than unprototypical. As a commonsense psychology of groups, we reasoned that the perceived relationship between prototypicality and intragroup respect would be stronger for cohesive groups compared to incohesive groups. The effect of intragroup respect on perceptions of prototypicality (Study 2a & 2c) and the effect of prototypicality on perceptions of intragroup respect (Study 2b) were generally stronger for participants considering cohesive groups relative to incohesive groups. However, the interaction effect of prototypicality and group cohesion on intragroup respect did fail to replicate in Study 2d. In Studies 3, 4a, and 4b we manipulated the relationship between prototypicality and intragroup respect and found that when these variables were in perceptual harmony participants perceived groups as more cohesive. The results of eight out of nine studies conducted are consistent with the prediction that people make inferences about intragroup respect, prototypicality, and group cohesion in a manner that maintains perceptual harmony.

Inclusivity of past collective trauma and its implications for current intractable conflict: The mediating role of moral lessons.

How are perceptions of past collective trauma related to moral lessons derived, and how are those in turn associated with conflict-related policy preferences of those presently involved in intractable conflict? We hypothesized that inclusive conceptions of past trauma will be positively associated with moral obligations and negatively with moral entitlement, and that moral obligations will be positively associated with humanitarian policies and negatively with militaristic policies, while moral entitlement will be positively associated with militaristic policies and negatively with humanitarian policies. In a cross-sectional study with a representative sample of Jewish Israelis (N = 504), moral obligations mediated the association between higher inclusivity of past collective trauma and humanitarian policy support, while moral entitlement mediated between lower inclusivity and increased militant policy support. Inclusive perceptions of past trauma and its moral lessons may play a critical role in advancing conflict resolution in intractable conflicts settings unrelated to the initial trauma.

Justice Agents: Discriminated Group Members Are Perceived to be Highly Committed to Social Justice.

We propose that because members of discriminated (vs. advantaged) groups have a history of dealing with injustice, majority group members expect them to be more committed to social justice. By commitment to social justice, we mean supporting, and caring for, the basic rights of virtually any marginalized group. Studies 1a (N = 145) and 1b (N = 120) revealed that members of discriminated (vs. relatively advantaged) groups were seen as having a stronger commitment to social justice. This was explained by participants' perception of discriminated groups as having a tradition of fighting injustice (Study 2; N = 174). Demonstrating implications of these perceptions, discriminated (relative to advantaged) group members were assigned more justice-related roles in the workplace (Study 3a: N = 120; Study 3b: N = 126; Study 4: N = 133), and their justice-related initiatives were rated more negatively (Study 5: N = 259). Theoretical and practical implications regarding minority-majority relations and minorities' ability to advance in workplace hierarchies are discussed.

Prosocial perceptions of taxation predict support for taxes.

Many people report disliking taxes despite the fact that tax funds are used to provide essential services for the taxpayer and fellow citizens. In light of past research demonstrating that people are more likely to engage in prosocial action when they recognize how their assistance positively impacts the recipient, we examine whether recognition of how one's tax contributions help other citizens-perceived prosocial taxation-predicts more supportive views of taxation and greater engagement. We conducted three correlational studies using North American samples (N = 902, including a nationally representative sample of over 500 US residents) in which we find that perceived prosocial taxation is associated with greater enjoyment paying taxes, willingness to continue paying taxes, and larger financial contributions in a tax-like payment. Findings hold when controlling for several demographic variables, participants' general prosocial orientation, and the perception that tax dollars are being put to good use. In addition, we examined data from six waves of the World Values Survey (N > 474,000 across 107 countries). We find that people expressing trust in their government and civil service-thereby indicating some confidence that their taxes will be used in prosocial ways-are significantly more likely to state that it is never justifiable to cheat on taxes. Together, these studies offer a new and optimistic perspective on taxation; people may hold more positive views and be more willing to contribute if they believe their contribution benefits others.

Observer perceptions of the justifiability of the actions of nations in conflict: The relative importance of conveying national vulnerability versus strength.

Because the underdog in a conflict typically gains the support of observers, nations will often adopt a narrative that persuades both their domestic following and international allies that they are the true victim in the conflict. Three survey studies were conducted to assess the perceptions of citizens of a third-party observer nation (Canada) in relation to two nations in conflict that differ in their historical persecution, namely the U.S. and Israel. Perceptions of the vulnerability of their safety and survival, and their strength to protect themselves against their opponents were hypothesized to mediate differences in the perceived justification for each nation's conflict actions. Study 1 (N = 91) supported this mediational model, with the U.S. seen as less vulnerable and more powerful than Israel, and perceptions of vulnerability accounting for differences in the justifiability of their respective conflict actions. Study 2 (N = 315) further demonstrated a moderating effect of Canadians' shared identity with the nations in conflict; only at lower levels of a shared identity was Israel perceived to be more vulnerable and the mediated relation with the perceived justifiability of its conflict actions retained. Study 3 was conducted 10 years later (2018), administering measures to an independent sample of Canadian participants (N = 300). Canadians were found to be significantly less likely to share a common identity with Americans than previously; once again, the mediating role of the perceived vulnerability of the nations in conflict and the justifiability of their actions was conditional on shared identification. The findings contribute to understanding influences on the credibility of victim claims by nations in conflict, as well as implications for how their actions are construed by citizens of a third-party observer nation.

Toward a Positive Psychology of Immigrants.

The vast majority of immigration-focused research in psychology is rooted in deficit models that center on negative health outcomes (e.g., depression, acculturative stress, anxiety, substance use), resulting in a widely held assumption that immigrants are at greater risk for pathology and poor well-being compared with native-born individuals. Moreover, current political discourse often portrays immigrants as more prone to crime compared with native-born individuals. From a positive-psychology perspective, we argue that, despite numerous migration-related challenges, many immigrant populations report positive patterns of psychological health. We also provide evidence that immigrants are, in fact, less prone to crime than their native-born counterparts. We conclude by discussing several contributing factors that account for positive immigrant well-being across the range of destination countries. Ultimately, the field should address questions regarding (a) immigrants' strategies for coping with the challenges involved in adapting to new homelands and (b) asset-based factors that help immigrants to thrive during difficult life challenges.

Social psychological research on prejudice as collective action supporting emergent ingroup members.

Why does social psychological research on prejudice change across time? We argue that scientific change is not simply a result of empirical evidence, technological developments, or social controversies, but rather emerges out of social change-driven shifts in how researchers categorize themselves and others within their larger societies. As mainstream researchers increasingly recategorize former outgroup members as part of a novel ingroup, prejudice research shifts in support of emergent ingroup members against their emergent outgroup opponents. Although social change-driven science results in valuable opportunities for researchers, it also results in significant risks for research - collective, scientific biases in the inclusion and exclusion of social groups in prejudice research that are not readily detected or managed by traditional controls. We present the Emergent Ingroup Model (EIM) to encourage reflection on shared biases, as well as to spark a broader conversation on how to strengthen our field for a rapidly changing and increasingly global world.

Perceived discrimination and well-being among unauthorized Hispanic immigrants: The moderating role of ethnic/racial group identity centrality.

OBJECTIVES: We investigated the association between perceived ethnic discrimination with psychological well-being and life satisfaction among a community sample of unauthorized Hispanic immigrants in the United States. We also assessed whether ethnic/racial group identity centrality moderated this relationship. METHOD: A community sample of self-reported unauthorized Hispanics (N = 140) completed questionnaires assessing perceived ethnic discrimination, ethnic/racial group identity centrality, psychological well-being, and life satisfaction. RESULTS: Discrimination negatively predicted psychological well-being and life satisfaction, and ethnic/racial group identity centrality moderated these relationships. High ethnic/racial group identity centrality reduced the association of discrimination with psychological well-being and life satisfaction. Ethnic/racial identity centrality lent psychological protection for those who reported higher levels of discrimination. CONCLUSION: Ethnic discrimination is a salient stressor for unauthorized Hispanic immigrants. Yet high ethnic/racial group identity centrality may protect these individuals from the negative effects of discrimination by providing a sense of belonging, acceptance, and social support in the face of rejection. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

The social identity approach to disability: Bridging disability studies and psychological science.

Although mainstream psychology has received numerous critiques for its traditional approaches to disability-related research, proposals for alternative theory that can encompass the social, cultural, political, and historical features of disability are lacking. The social identity approach (SIA) offers a rich framework from which to ask research questions about the experience of disability in accordance with the critical insights found in disability studies (DS), the source for many of the most compelling critiques of disability psychology research. We review existing research considering the complementary social identity (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) and self-categorization (Turner, Hogg, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987) theories to support our contention that the disability social category is a significant driving force in the psychological experience of disability and to demonstrate the theoretical utility of the SIA. We suggest that a bridge between the critical epistemological perspectives found in disability studies and the methodological rigor and theoretical breadth and parsimony of a social identity approach is essential for examining the social psychological experience of disability in the 21st century. To conclude we explore the emergent possibilities for research in psychological science that can follow from a social identity approach to disability. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).

The social complexities of disability: Discrimination, belonging and life satisfaction among Canadian youth.

Although disability has been on the psychological agenda for some time, there is limited empirical evidence on the life satisfaction of youth with a disability, especially the effect of discrimination and factors that might mitigate it. We address this critical gap by examining the complex social experiences of youth with a disability and the culminating effect on life satisfaction. We ask three questions: (1) Is having a disability associated with lower life satisfaction? (2) Do youth with a disability experience discrimination and, if so, how does this affect life satisfaction? (3) Can a sense of belonging mitigate the negative effect of discrimination? We address these questions using microdata from the Canadian Community Health Survey, which is nationally representative. Our sample consists of 11,997 adolescents, of whom 2193 have a disability. We find that life satisfaction is lower among youth with a disability. Moreover, many experience disability-related discrimination, which has a negative effect on life satisfaction. However, this is mitigated by a sense of belonging to the community. Specifically, youth with a disability do not report lower life satisfaction when high belonging is present, even if they experience discrimination. This is true for boys and girls. We conclude that belonging, even if it is not disability-related, is protective of well-being. This has important implications for policy whereby organizations that cultivate a sense of belonging may alleviate the harm sustained by youth who experience discrimination as a result of their disability.

Having a lot of a good thing: multiple important group memberships as a source of self-esteem.

Membership in important social groups can promote a positive identity. We propose and test an identity resource model in which personal self-esteem is boosted by membership in additional important social groups. Belonging to multiple important group memberships predicts personal self-esteem in children (Study 1a), older adults (Study 1b), and former residents of a homeless shelter (Study 1c). Study 2 shows that the effects of multiple important group memberships on personal self-esteem are not reducible to number of interpersonal ties. Studies 3a and 3b provide longitudinal evidence that multiple important group memberships predict personal self-esteem over time. Studies 4 and 5 show that collective self-esteem mediates this effect, suggesting that membership in multiple important groups boosts personal self-esteem because people take pride in, and derive meaning from, important group memberships. Discussion focuses on when and why important group memberships act as a social resource that fuels personal self-esteem.

From "we" to "me": Group identification enhances perceived personal control with consequences for health and well-being.

There is growing recognition that identification with social groups can protect and enhance health and well-being, thereby constituting a kind of "social cure." The present research explores the role of control as a novel mediator of the relationship between shared group identity and well-being. Five studies provide evidence for this process. Group identification predicted significantly greater perceived personal control across 47 countries (Study 1), and in groups that had experienced success and failure (Study 2). The relationship was observed longitudinally (Study 3) and experimentally (Study 4). Manipulated group identification also buffered a loss of personal control (Study 5). Across the studies, perceived personal control mediated social cure effects in political, academic, community, and national groups. The findings reveal that the personal benefits of social groups come not only from their ability to make people feel good, but also from their ability to make people feel capable and in control of their lives.

The consequences of perceived discrimination for psychological well-being: a meta-analytic review.

In 2 meta-analyses, we examined the relationship between perceived discrimination and psychological well-being and tested a number of moderators of that relationship. In Meta-Analysis 1 (328 independent effect sizes, N = 144,246), we examined correlational data measuring both perceived discrimination and psychological well-being (e.g., self-esteem, depression, anxiety, psychological distress, life satisfaction). Using a random-effects model, the mean weighted effect size was significantly negative, indicating harm (r = -.23). Effect sizes were larger for disadvantaged groups (r = -.24) compared to advantaged groups (r = -.10), larger for children compared to adults, larger for perceptions of personal discrimination compared to group discrimination, and weaker for racism and sexism compared to other stigmas. The negative relationship was significant across different operationalizations of well-being but was somewhat weaker for positive outcomes (e.g., self-esteem, positive affect) than for negative outcomes (e.g., depression, anxiety, negative affect). Importantly, the effect size was significantly negative even in longitudinal studies that controlled for prior levels of well-being (r = -.15). In Meta-Analysis 2 (54 independent effect sizes, N = 2,640), we examined experimental data from studies manipulating perceptions of discrimination and measuring well-being. We found that the effect of discrimination on well-being was significantly negative for studies that manipulated general perceptions of discrimination (d = -.25), but effects did not differ from 0 when attributions to discrimination for a specific negative event were compared to personal attributions (d = .06). Overall, results support the idea that the pervasiveness of perceived discrimination is fundamental to its harmful effects on psychological well-being.

Higher moral obligations of tolerance toward other minorities: an extra burden on stigmatized groups.

In four experiments, we tested whether members of stigmatized groups are expected to be more tolerant toward other minorities than members of non-stigmatized groups and assessed the consequences of disconfirming those expectancies. Experiments 1 and 2 showed that majority group members expected members of a stigmatized group to be more tolerant toward immigrants, particularly when the stigmatized minority was perceived as having overcome the negative consequences of its victimization. When this tolerance expectation was disconfirmed, stigmatized group members were judged more immoral than members of a non-stigmatized group that held the same intolerant attitudes. Experiments 3 and 4 showed that these effects were driven by the belief that stigmatized groups should derive benefits from their suffering. These findings suggest that stigmatized groups are judged according to stricter moral standards than non-stigmatized groups because majority group members need to make meaning of the undeserved suffering experienced by victims of social stigma.

Influence of the social context on use of surgical-lengthening and group-empowering coping strategies among people with dwarfism.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the role that social contextual factors exert on the way people with disproportionate short stature (dwarfism) cope with the negative consequences of discrimination. METHOD: Using multigroup structural equation modeling, we compare the coping process of people with dwarfism from Spain (N = 63) and the USA (N = 145), two countries that differ in the role played by organizations offering support to people with dwarfism. RESULTS: In Spain, where organizational support is recent, a coping approach aimed at achieving integration with the majority group through limb-lengthening surgery prevails; in the USA, where the long-standing organization of people with dwarfism encourages pride in being a "little person" and positive intragroup contact, a coping strategy based on empowering the minority group dominates. CONCLUSIONS: Both strategies, each in its own context, are effective at protecting psychological well-being from the negative consequences of stigmatization; however, they exert their positive effects through different processes.

Observer perceptions of moral obligations in groups with a history of victimization.

The authors investigated when observers assign contemporary group members moral obligations based on their group's victimization history. In Experiment 1, Americans perceived Israelis as obligated to help Sudanese genocide victims and as guiltworthy for not helping if reminded of the Holocaust and its descendants were linked to this history. In Experiment 2, participants perceived Israelis as more obligated to help and guiltworthy for not helping when the Holocaust was presented as a unique victimization event compared with when genocide was presented as pervasive. Experiments 3 and 4 replicated the effects of Experiment 1 with Cambodians as the victimized group. Experiment 5 demonstrated that participants perceived Cambodians as having more obligations under high just world threat compared with low just world threat. Perceiving victimized groups as incurring obligations is one just world restoration method of providing meaning to collective injustice.