When majority members exclude ethnic minorities: The impact of shame on the desire to object to immoral acts

Shame and anger differentially predict disidentification between collectivistic and individualistic societies

In the present research we tested the differential effects of anger versus shame as emotional predictors of ingroup disidentification in one rather collectivistic (Japan) and two rather individualistic societies (Germany, Canada). We tested the idea that individuals cope with socially undesired emotions by disidentifying from their group. Specifically, we predicted that after a group conflict, anger, an undesired emotion in Japan, would elicit disidentification in Japan, whereas shame, an undesired emotion in Canada and Germany, would elicit disidentification in Germany and Canada. Study 1 (N = 378) found that anger, but not shame, was related to disidentification in Japan, whereas shame, but not anger, was related to disidentification in Canada and Germany. Study 2 (N = 171) shows that, after group conflict, Japanese disidentified more when imagining to feel angry, whereas Germans disidentified more when imagining to feel ashamed. Implications for these findings are discussed.

Parents' Political Ideology Predicts How Their Children Punish

From an early age, children are willing to pay a personal cost to punish others for violations that do not affect them directly. Various motivations underlie such "costly punishment": People may punish to enforce cooperative norms (amplifying punishment of in-groups) or to express anger at perpetrators (amplifying punishment of out-groups). Thus, group-related values and attitudes (e.g., how much one values fairness or feels out-group hostility) likely shape the development of group-related punishment. The present experiments (N = 269, ages 3-8 from across the United States) tested whether children's punishment varies according to their parents' political ideology-a possible proxy for the value systems transmitted to children intergenerationally. As hypothesized, parents' self-reported political ideology predicted variation in the punishment behavior of their children. Specifically, parental conservatism was associated with children's punishment of out-group members, and parental liberalism was associated with children's punishment of in-group members. These findings demonstrate how differences in group-related ideologies shape punishment across generations.

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.

Shamed If You Do, Shamed If You Do Not: Group-Based Moral Emotions, Accountability, and Tolerance of Enemy Collateral Casualties

Civilian casualties contribute to the perpetuation of intergroup conflicts through increased radicalization and hostilities, but little is known on the psychological processes that affect responses to outgroup civilian casualties. The goal of the present research was to explore two factors expected to lead group members to act more cautiously, thereby reducing civilian casualties: perceived accountability and forecast group-based moral emotions. In two studies, Jewish-Israeli civilians (Study 1) and soldiers (Study 2) were asked to forecast their group-based moral emotions in case of Palestinian (i.e., outgroup) civilian casualties, then exposed to accountability manipulations. Participants who expected to feel low levels of shame and were primed with accountability made more cautious decisions than those in the control condition. Participants who expected to feel high levels of shame were unaffected by accountability primes. Theoretical and practical implications regarding forecast moral emotions and accountability as an intervention in intergroup conflicts are discussed.

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.

Normalization of the Alt-Right: How perceived prevalence and acceptability of the Alt-Right is linked to public attitudes

The rise of far-right movements calls for greater understanding of how the public responds to such movements. In the context of the United States, we examined the role of normative beliefs about the Alt-Right in shaping public reactions toward the movement (three studies, total N = 1,379). Specifically, we examined how perceived prevalence (high descriptive norms) and acceptability (high injunctive norms) of the Alt-Right are linked to public attitudes toward that movement. We found limited evidence of a threat response—that is, perceived prevalence of the Alt-Right did not consistently predict more negative reactions toward it, such as fearing its potential harm to society. There was, however, more consistent evidence of a normalization response—that is, perceived acceptability of the Alt-Right predicted more positive reactions toward it, such as showing leniency toward their activities. These findings underscore the importance of far-right movements in possibly shaping normative standards in society, and how such norms are linked to public attitudes.

Risking the social bond: motivations to defend or to repair when dealing with displeasing information

Our choice to withhold or disclose displeasing information to another can motivate concern about damage to our social bonds. In two experiments, using two different samples of university students in Norway, (N = 174 and N = 217), we found that withholding unpleasant information led to greater concern for self- image and social-image than did disclosure. We also found that withholding elicited more shame, inferiority and rejection than disclosure, and in Experiment 2, withholding elicited more defensive motivation than disclosure. Consistent with our model, defensive motivation was mostly explained by concern for social-image, whereas relationship repair motivation was mostly explained by concern for self-image and felt shame. We discuss implications for the literature on shame and social bonds.

National identity and beliefs about historical linguicide are associated with support for exclusive language policies among the Ukrainian linguistic majority

We examined the idea that endorsement of state-level restrictive language policies can be understood as an ingroup-preserving behaviour driven by majority group members’ experiences of linguistic-based collective angst (i.e., concern about the future vitality of the ingroup’s language). We did so in the context of legislative reform aimed to enforce monolinguistic public education in Ukraine – a linguistically heterogeneous nation-state with a history of a foreign ethno-political domination. Specifically, we hypothesized that collective angst is most likely to be experienced when majority group members feel higher attachment to Ukraine (vs. glorification) and shared beliefs about historical linguicide of the Ukrainian language. Using data from a public opinion survey ( N = 774), we found support for the mediation model – higher attachment and beliefs about historical linguicide predicted increased support for restrictive policies directly and through collective angst, whereas glorification was found to be a non-significant predictor in this relation. Our results highlight the role of the specific content of protagonists’ social identities in predicting their support for cultural assimilation of ethnic minority groups within heterogeneous societies.