How prototypical are we compared to them? The role of the group relative prototypicality in explaining the path from intergroup contact to collective action

IF 3 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL
Veronica Margherita Cocco, Sofia Stathi, Alice Lucarini, Saeed Keshavarzi, Ali Ruhani, Fateme Ebrahimi, Loris Vezzali
{"title":"How prototypical are we compared to them? The role of the group relative prototypicality in explaining the path from intergroup contact to collective action","authors":"Veronica Margherita Cocco,&nbsp;Sofia Stathi,&nbsp;Alice Lucarini,&nbsp;Saeed Keshavarzi,&nbsp;Ali Ruhani,&nbsp;Fateme Ebrahimi,&nbsp;Loris Vezzali","doi":"10.1111/bjso.12858","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In two cross-sectional and two experimental studies across both advantaged and disadvantaged group members (<i>N</i><sub><i>total</i></sub> = 1980 from two national contexts, UK and Italy), we explored if perceptions of group relative prototypicality may explain the association of positive and negative contact with collective action. Specifically, across studies, we investigated subgroup relative prototypicality with respect to four different common identities (national, supranational, based on humanity, humanity values). In Studies 1–2, among advantaged group members, positive contact was positively associated with collective action intentions via greater relative prototypicality of disadvantaged groups; in Study 2, we also found that negative contact was negatively associated with collective action intentions via decreased relative prototypicality of disadvantaged groups. By contrast, among disadvantaged group members, relative prototypicality did not exert any mediation effects. Experimental Studies 3–4 using advantaged group member participants generally provided causal evidence that positive (imagined) contact increases relative prototypicality of the disadvantaged group (Study 3), and that relative prototypicality increases collective action (Study 4).</p>","PeriodicalId":48304,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Social Psychology","volume":"64 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Social Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjso.12858","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In two cross-sectional and two experimental studies across both advantaged and disadvantaged group members (Ntotal = 1980 from two national contexts, UK and Italy), we explored if perceptions of group relative prototypicality may explain the association of positive and negative contact with collective action. Specifically, across studies, we investigated subgroup relative prototypicality with respect to four different common identities (national, supranational, based on humanity, humanity values). In Studies 1–2, among advantaged group members, positive contact was positively associated with collective action intentions via greater relative prototypicality of disadvantaged groups; in Study 2, we also found that negative contact was negatively associated with collective action intentions via decreased relative prototypicality of disadvantaged groups. By contrast, among disadvantaged group members, relative prototypicality did not exert any mediation effects. Experimental Studies 3–4 using advantaged group member participants generally provided causal evidence that positive (imagined) contact increases relative prototypicality of the disadvantaged group (Study 3), and that relative prototypicality increases collective action (Study 4).

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

与他们相比,我们的原型有多典型?群体相对原型在解释群体间接触到集体行动的过程中的作用。
在两项横断面研究和两项实验研究中,研究对象包括优势群体和弱势群体成员(Ntotal = 1980,分别来自英国和意大利两个国家),我们探讨了群体相对原型性的感知是否可以解释积极和消极接触与集体行动的关联。具体来说,在研究中,我们研究了四种不同的共同身份(国家、超国家、基于人性、人性价值观)下的亚群体相对原型性。在研究1-2中,优势群体的积极接触通过弱势群体的相对原型性与集体行动意图呈正相关;在研究2中,我们还发现消极接触通过弱势群体相对原型性的降低与集体行动意图呈负相关。相反,在弱势群体成员中,相对原型性不发挥任何中介作用。使用优势群体成员参与者的实验研究3-4普遍提供了因果证据,证明积极(想象)接触会增加弱势群体的相对原型性(研究3),相对原型性会增加集体行动(研究4)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.50
自引率
7.40%
发文量
85
期刊介绍: The British Journal of Social Psychology publishes work from scholars based in all parts of the world, and manuscripts that present data on a wide range of populations inside and outside the UK. It publishes original papers in all areas of social psychology including: • social cognition • attitudes • group processes • social influence • intergroup relations • self and identity • nonverbal communication • social psychological aspects of personality, affect and emotion • language and discourse Submissions addressing these topics from a variety of approaches and methods, both quantitative and qualitative are welcomed. We publish papers of the following kinds: • empirical papers that address theoretical issues; • theoretical papers, including analyses of existing social psychological theories and presentations of theoretical innovations, extensions, or integrations; • review papers that provide an evaluation of work within a given area of social psychology and that present proposals for further research in that area; • methodological papers concerning issues that are particularly relevant to a wide range of social psychologists; • an invited agenda article as the first article in the first part of every volume. The editorial team aims to handle papers as efficiently as possible. In 2016, papers were triaged within less than a week, and the average turnaround time from receipt of the manuscript to first decision sent back to the authors was 47 days.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信