Moral Improvement of Self, Social Relations, and Society.

There is always room for moral improvement. However, very few prior reviews have focused on the phenomenon of moral improvement of self, social relations, or society. We first consider prevailing notions of the self-concept by highlighting the niche of theory and research that identifies an improving self as a possible identity and basis of motivation to act better and to be better. Second, we discuss moral improvement in the context of social relations, especially the close interpersonal relations that should most facilitate moral improvement. Third, we examine the moral improvement of society, focusing on the factors that facilitate or inhibit caring about potential immorality despite the fact that issues such as inequality, discrimination, and the climate crisis seem to be morally distant and impersonal. Finally, we discuss future directions for theory, research, and application.

Protesters as "passionate economists": a dynamic dual pathway model of approach coping with collective disadvantage.

To explain the psychology behind individuals' motivation to participate in collective action against collective disadvantage (e.g., protest marches), the authors introduce a dynamic dual pathway model of approach coping that integrates many common explanations of collective action (i.e., group identity, unfairness, anger, social support, and efficacy). It conceptualizes collective action as the outcome of two distinct processes: emotion-focused and problem-focused approach coping. The former revolves around the experience of group-based anger (based in appraised external blame for unfair collective disadvantage). The latter revolves around beliefs in the group's efficacy (based in appraised instrumental coping potential for social change). The model is the first to make explicit the dynamic nature of collective action by explaining how undertaking collective action leads to the reappraisal of collective disadvantage, thus inspiring future collective action. The authors review empirical support for the model, discuss its theoretical and practical implications, and identify directions for future research and application.

Editorial.

In this editorial, Colin Wayne Leach says it seems that personality and social psychology is at a crossroads. His hope is that we will learn from past failings and fractures and begin to consolidate our most important lessons into a renewed sense of shared purpose and practice. As the incoming Editor of Journal of Personality & Social Psychology: Interpersonal Relations and Group Processes (JPSP: IRGP), it is his mission to facilitate our collective effort in our common cause. Leach wishes to see the full range of social psychology topics and approaches rigorously pursued in the pages of JPSP: IRGP. The only thing necessary to publish in JPSP: IRGP is sufficient principled argument and evidence for the desired inference(s). Outside of the basic desire to see key results replicated, the evidence in a JPSP: IRGP article needs to be as comprehensive as the argument being made. Argument and evidence regarding ancillary (conceptual, methodological, or statistical) assumptions can be reported in targeted supplemental materials and simply mentioned in the main text. Leach expresses his gratitude to Editor Kerry Kawakami, the entire team of former Associate Editors, and the legion of regular reviewers who have served the journal and the field so well for so long. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

A Systems View of Emotion in Socio-political Context.

Most work to date in psychology and related sciences has examined simple, unidirectional causal processes of emotion affecting socio-political context or vice versa. In this classic, mechanistic view of science, each empirical observation stands on its own as a piece of some grander, not yet understandable, puzzle of nature. There have been repeated calls to eschew classic approaches in favor of systems meta-theory in psychology and related sciences. In this paper, we join these calls by arguing that systems meta-theory can better enable the study of emotions in socio-political contexts. We offer a brief primer on systems meta-theory, delineating three key beneficial features: multi-leveled, complex, and dynamic. Viewing emotion as a system of systems-within the person, their relationships (to others), and within the world (locally and globally)-enables fresh theory, method, and statistical analysis well suited to the study of emotion in a socio-political context.

The person in political emotion.

Recent social psychological theory and research on political issues has returned to once-popular concepts such as political emotion and ideology. Strikingly, however, this work tends to avoid the notion of personality and explicit reference to individual differences. For example, the numerous studies that examine correlations between political beliefs, feelings, and preferences rarely acknowledge that such associations show an ideological coherence in individuals. Instead, correlations between abstract constructs are interpreted as suggesting causal processes. Individuals, and their responses, are aggregated to generate such correlations but remain for the most part unexamined and unmentioned. I discuss 5 practices in research and reporting that make it difficult to find the person in correlational models of political emotion. I use my own research to illustrate these practices and to show how attention to macrolevel forces such as group membership, status, and structure may be integrated with attention to the individual person and meaningful aggregates.

Explaining different orientations to the 2013 Gezi Park demonstrations in Istanbul, Turkey.

Although a notable minority orient to real-world demonstrations by actively participating, other less involved, safer, orientations are more frequent. Thus, in the context of anti-government demonstrations in Gezi Park/Taksim Square in Istanbul, Turkey, in 2013, we distinguished between the orientations of participating, visiting, and watching. Study 1 (N = 359) and Study 2 (N = 327) confirmed that participating was characterized by greater experience of police violence and feelings of collective empowerment (Drury & Reicher, European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 2005, 35) than visiting and watching the demonstrations. Expanding upon and replicating the findings from Study 1, Study 2 examined identification with protestors and left-wing ideology, along with constructs (social support, anger at the government, protestor's efficacy, endorsement of protestors) from the dynamic dual pathway model (van Zomeren et al., Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16, 2012, 180) as predictors of the three different orientations to the demonstrations. As expected, the dynamic dual pathway model predicted reported participation via endorsement of protestors, independent of identification with protestors and left-wing ideology.

"A vengefulness of the impotent": the pain of in-group inferiority and schadenfreude toward successful out-groups.

Nietzsche (1887/1967) suggested that the emotional pain individuals feel about their in-group's inferiority leads them to feel the pleasure of schadenfreude when a successful out-group fails. To test this idea, 2 studies examined a fictitious competition between real universities. Individuals' pain about their in-group's inferiority explained schadenfreude at the failure of a successful out-group better than dislike of the out-group, interest in the domain of competition, illegitimacy of the out-group's success, and illegitimacy of the in-group's inferiority. In addition, emotions regarding the out-group's success (i.e., envy, dislike-based anger, and illegitimacy-based anger) were weaker explanations of schadenfreude than the pain of in-group inferiority and anger based in this pain (which Nietzsche referred to as ressentiment). Thus, schadenfreude has more to do with the inferiority of the self than with the success of others. As well as providing evidence for a specific form of prejudice grounded in group-based emotions, this research also revives displacement explanations of prejudice toward 3rd parties.

Is it better to be moral than smart? The effects of morality and competence norms on the decision to work at group status improvement.

Three studies examined strategies of status improvement in experimentally created (Study 1 and 2) and preexisting (Study 3) low-status groups. Theory and prior research suggested that an in-group norm that established a particular strategy of status improvement as moral (rather than competent) would have a greater effect on individuals' decision to work at this strategy. Both Study 1 and Study 2 found that morality norms had a greater impact than competence norms on individuals' decision to work at group (rather than individual) status improvement. In both studies participants also needed less time to decide on a strategy of status improvement when it is was encouraged by a morality norm rather than a competence norm. Study 3 used a preexisting low-status group (i.e., Southern Italians) to further confirm that morality norms have a greater effect on the decision to work at group status improvement than do competence norms. Results are discussed in terms of social influence and identity management strategies.

Group-level self-definition and self-investment: a hierarchical (multicomponent) model of in-group identification.

Recent research shows individuals' identification with in-groups to be psychologically important and socially consequential. However, there is little agreement about how identification should be conceptualized or measured. On the basis of previous work, the authors identified 5 specific components of in-group identification and offered a hierarchical 2-dimensional model within which these components are organized. Studies 1 and 2 used confirmatory factor analysis to validate the proposed model of self-definition (individual self-stereotyping, in-group homogeneity) and self-investment (solidarity, satisfaction, and centrality) dimensions, across 3 different group identities. Studies 3 and 4 demonstrated the construct validity of the 5 components by examining their (concurrent) correlations with established measures of in-group identification. Studies 5-7 demonstrated the predictive and discriminant validity of the 5 components by examining their (prospective) prediction of individuals' orientation to, and emotions about, real intergroup relations. Together, these studies illustrate the conceptual and empirical value of a hierarchical multicomponent model of in-group identification.

Advantaged group's emotional reactions to intergroup inequality: the dynamics of pride, guilt, and sympathy.

Three studies establish intergroup inequality to investigate how it is emotionally experienced by the advantaged. Studies 1 and 2 examine psychology students' emotional experience of their unequal job situation with worse-off pedagogy students. When inequality is ingroup focused and legitimate, participants experience more pride. However, when inequality is ingroup focused and illegitimate, participants experience more guilt. Sympathy is increased when inequality is outgroup focused and illegitimate. These emotions have particular effects on behavioral tendencies. In Study 2 group-based pride predicts greater ingroup favoritism in a resource distribution task, whereas group-based sympathy predicts less ingroup favoritism. Study 3 replicates these findings in the context of students' willingness to let young immigrants take part in a university sport. Pride predicts less willingness to let immigrants take part whereas sympathy predicts greater willingness. Guilt is a weak predictor of behavioral tendencies in all studies. This shows the specificity of emotions experienced about intergroup inequality.

Exploring psychological mechanisms of collective action: does relevance of group identity influence how people cope with collective disadvantage?

Two studies examined how the relevance of group identity influences two psychological mechanisms of collective action: Emotion- and problem-focused coping with collective disadvantage. Extending Van Zomeren, Spears, Fischer, and Leach's (2004) integrative theoretical model of coping with collective disadvantage, we predicted that when group identity is more relevant to disadvantaged group members, it increases their collective action tendencies through their feelings of group-based anger about their group's disadvantage. When group identity is less relevant and hence emotion-focused coping processes are less likely, group-efficacy beliefs become more predictive of disadvantaged group members' collective action tendencies because people focus more instrumentally on whether collective action will be effective (and benefit them) or not. A field study and a follow-up experiment both showed that the relevance of group identity facilitated emotion-focused coping and moderated problem-focused coping with collective disadvantage. We discuss these results in terms of two distinct psychological mechanisms of collective action.

The Psychology of Martin Luther King Jr.'s "Creative Maladjustment" at Societal Injustice and Oppression.

Many theoretical frameworks in psychology are premised on the notion that people are hedonistic in nature-drawn to pleasure and avoidant of discomfort. In this essay, we argue that psychology's hedonism contrasts with Martin Luther King Jr's conception of creative maladjustment, wherein a feeling of "cosmic discontent" is focused on the ugly truth of societal injustice. After reviewing hedonistic assumptions in the psychology of coping, well-being, and views of societal inequality, we discuss MLK's conception of creative maladjustment and tie it to critical consciousness and the present-day idea of being "woke." We then use MLK's ideas as a lens on contemporary psychological research of views of societal injustice "from above" and "from below." We suggest that MLK's analysis continues to challenge psychology to develop an approach to cognition, emotion, and motivation at societal injustice that identifies the ethical value of a sustained discontent that illuminates truth and animates opposition.

Racialized images: Tracing appraisals of police force and protest.

As race acts as a social frame of reference, it should guide individual's appraisal of visual representations of social events and issues. Thus, grounded in Scherer's (2009) model of appraisal as a sequential process, in 2 experiments (N = 133, 166) we used early event-related potentials (ERPs) of brain activity (the N100, P200, P300) to examine Black and White participants' appraisals of the novelty of images of police force against Black (and White) targets, as well as of Black-led protest. We used a later ERP (the late positive potential, LPP) as well as blood pressure to assess their appraisal of motivational relevance, and self-reported affect and emotion to assess conscious experience. White participants' early ERPs suggested that they appraised the images as more novel than did Black participants. Nevertheless, Black participants' later (LPP) ERP, and blood pressure, suggested that they appraised the images as more motivationally relevant. Consistent with this, Black participants expressed more attentiveness, anger, and empowerment at the images, whereas White participants expressed more surprise. A mediation model in Experiment 2 showed that self-reported familiarity with past racial violence, as well as surprise and attentiveness to the images, explained the difference between Black and White participants' appraisals of motivational relevance (i.e., the LPP). We discuss implications for appraisal theory, stress and coping, and societally situated cognition and affect. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).

Group virtue: the importance of morality (vs. competence and sociability) in the positive evaluation of in-groups.

Although previous research has focused on competence and sociability as the characteristics most important to positive group evaluation, the authors suggest that morality is more important. Studies with preexisting and experimentally created in-groups showed that a set of positive traits constituted distinct factors of morality, competence, and sociability. When asked directly, Study 1 participants reported that their in-group's morality was more important than its competence or sociability. An unobtrusive factor analytic method also showed morality to be a more important explanation of positive in-group evaluation than competence or sociability. Experimental manipulations of morality and competence (Study 4) and morality and sociability (Study 5) showed that only in-group morality affected aspects of the group-level self-concept related to positive evaluation (i.e., pride in, or distancing from, the in-group). Consistent with this finding, identification with experimentally created (Study 2b) and preexisting (Studies 4 and 5) in-groups predicted the ascription of morality, but not competence or sociability, to the in-group.

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.

Upward social comparison and self-concept: inspiration and inferiority among art students in an advanced programme.

We examined the role of social comparison in changes in the artistic self-concept of adolescents attending an advanced arts programme. Unfavourable comparisons that promoted a sense of inferiority and favourable comparisons that promoted inspiration were measured just prior to, in the first week of, and at the end of the 6 week programme. Consistent with the 'big fish little pond effect', inferiority comparisons made during the programme were associated with negative changes in self-concept. Consistent with the social comparison literature, however, inspiration comparisons made during the programme were associated with positive changes in self-concept. Rather than suggesting that exposure to highly talented peers is necessarily unfavourable, results suggest that the interpretation of the comparisons made in situ determines the favourability of such exposure.

Group-based guilt as a predictor of commitment to apology.

Whether the Australian government should officially apologize to Indigenous Australians for past wrongs is hotly debated in Australia. The predictors of support amongst non-Indigenous Australians for such an apology were examined in two studies. The first study (N=164) showed that group-based guilt was a good predictor of support for a government apology, as was the perception that non-Indigenous Australians were relatively advantaged. In the second study (N=116) it was found that group-based guilt was an excellent predictor of support for apology and was itself predicted by perceived non-Indigenous responsibility for harsh treatment of Indigenous people, and an absence of doubts about the legitimacy of group-based guilt. National identification was not a predictor of group-based guilt. The results of the two studies suggest that, just as individual emotions predict individual action tendencies, so group-based guilt predicts support for actions or decisions to be taken at the collective level.

When is shame linked to constructive approach orientation? A meta-analysis.

Despite recent evidence that episodic shame can be linked to the constructive approach of failure (i.e., prosociality, self-improvement), the prevailing view is that shame is neither constructive nor approach-oriented. To integrate these opposing views, we conducted a theory-driven meta-analysis of 90 samples from the published literature (N = 12,364). As expected, shame had a positive link to constructive approach when failure (g = .47, 95% confidence interval [CI] [.37, .55]) or social image (g = .37, 95% CI [.06, .68]) was more reparable. In contrast, shame had a negative link to constructive approach when failure was less reparable (g = -.34, 95% CI [-.53, -.14]). A supplemental meta-analysis of 42 samples showed shame and guilt to have a similar positive link to constructive approach orientation when failure was more reparable (g = .44 and .43), but not when it was less reparable (g = -.08 and .27).

Parsing (malicious) pleasures: schadenfreude and gloating at others' adversity.

We offer the first empirical comparison of the pleasure in seeing (i.e., schadenfreude) and in causing (i.e., gloating) others' adversity. In Study 1, we asked participants to recall and report on an (individual or group) episode of pleasure that conformed to our formal definition of schadenfreude, gloating, pride, or joy, without reference to an emotion word. Schadenfreude and gloating were distinct in the situational features of the episode, participants' appraisals of it, and their expressions of pleasure (e.g., smiling, boasting). In Study 2, we had participants imagine being in an (individual or group) emotion episode designed to fit our conceptualization of schadenfreude or gloating. Individual and group versions of the emotions did not differ much in either study. However, the two pleasures differed greatly in their situational features, appraisals, experience, and expression. This parsing of the particular pleasures of schadenfreude and gloating brings nuance to the study of (malicious) pleasure, which tends to be less finely conceptualized and examined than displeasure despite its importance to social relations.