Refusing to tolerate ongoing prejudicial behavior toward immigrants: Together we can object to prejudicial flag displays.

Over recent years, immigrants have been met with unjust prejudiced behavior instead of warm welcome. However, not all citizens of a nation endorse such behavior, instead they try to oppose it through social mobilization. In the context of an ongoing situation where the national flag is used as a prejudiced means to exclude immigrants, individuals who felt attached with all members of the nation felt significantly more shame for the unjust than individuals who glorify their nation. Consequently, attached identifiers expressed a significantly greater motivation than glorified identifiers to start thinking about social mobilization to reclaim the meaning of the flag as a symbol of inclusion, not exclusion. The current study contributes to the growing debate on how immigrants are received, and it helps explain how national identification and feelings such as shame motivate individuals to start thinking about objecting to prejudicial flag displays.

Where There Is a (Collective) Will, There Are (Effective) Ways: Integrating Individual- and Group-Level Factors in Explaining Humanitarian Collective Action.

The 21st century has borne witness to catastrophic natural and human-induced tragedies. These disasters necessitate humanitarian responses; however, the individual and collective bases of support are not well understood. Drawing on Duncan's motivational model of collective action, we focus on how individual differences position a person to adopt group memberships and develop a "group consciousness" that provides the basis for humanitarian action. Longitudinal mediation analyses involving supporters of international humanitarian action (N = 384) sampled annually for 3 years provided support for the hypothesized model, with some twists. The results revealed that within time point, a set of individual differences (together, the "pro-social orientation") promoted a humanitarian group consciousness that, in turn, facilitated collective action. However, longitudinally, there was evidence that a more general pro-social orientation undermined subsequent identification with, and engagement in, the humanitarian cause. Results are discussed in terms of understanding the interplay between individual and group in collective actions.

Perspective taking and opinions about forms of reparation for victims of historical harm.

The authors investigated the effects of perspective taking on opinions about reparations for victims of historical harm. In two studies, they showed that when non-Indigenous Australians took an Indigenous Australian perspective, this increased perceived entitlement to, and decreased anger toward, monetary compensation. Moreover, perceived entitlement mediated the relationship between anger about monetary compensation and perspective taking. Study 2 demonstrated the mutual influence of emotions and perceived entitlement. In particular, self-image shame rather than group-based guilt or anger predicted support for reparation when an Indigenous Australian perspective was adopted. The results suggest that taking the perspective of people who have experienced harm from one's own group can bolster a commitment to positive social change in relation to a pressing social issue.

Risks of meat: the relative impact of cognitive, affective and moral concerns.

The purpose of the present research was, first, to examine the impact of particular perspectives (Study 1: cognitive and affective; Study 2: moral) on the perception and acceptance of risks associated with meat consumption, and intention to reduce meat consumption in the future. The first study showed that an affective focus generally had a stronger impact on risk perception and acceptance, and intention to reduce meat consumption, than a more cognitive focus. Moreover, moral considerations had a clear impact in all conditions. Results of a second study confirmed that a moral focus has powerful effects on all the dependent variables. The second purpose of the research was to examine the perseverance of the impact of cognitive, affective and moral perspectives. In both studies, a follow-up after three weeks showed increased perception of moral risks and a strong intention to reduce future meat consumption. Moreover, attitude towards meat consumption became less positive in the conditions with an affective and moral focus. There were also significant relations between intention to reduce meat consumption, actual reduction, and intention to adhere to this level in the future. Overall, risk acceptance was mediated by perceived health and moral risks, whereas intention about meat consumption was mediated by risk acceptance.

Ambivalence towards meat.

The purpose of the present study was to examine whether differences in ambivalence between meat eaters affect their attitude towards eating meat, the belief structure underlying these attitudes, meat consumption, and intentions to reduce consumption in the future. Not surprisingly, more ambivalent meat eaters held a less positive attitude towards meat as compared to less ambivalent meat eaters. Moreover, the belief structure of the two groups also differed: More ambivalent persons associated the consumption of meat with slightly negative feelings, morally unacceptable issues, and risks for both their health and the environment. In contrast, less ambivalent meat eaters reported positive affective beliefs, did not emphasize moral issues, and perceived less risk. Results highlight the role of affective beliefs as a predictor of both attitude and ambivalence. Ambivalence, in turn, was a predictor of actual meat consumption; i.e. increased ambivalence was related to reduced meat consumption. Moreover, more ambivalent meat eaters intended to further reduce their meat consumption in the future. Practical and theoretical implications of these results are discussed.