Hu Young Jeong, Johanna Ray Vollhardt, Michelle S. Twali, John Tawa
{"title":"基于社会需求的不同权力观念:对亚裔美国人的定性研究结果","authors":"Hu Young Jeong, Johanna Ray Vollhardt, Michelle S. Twali, John Tawa","doi":"10.1111/bjso.12777","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>While power is often defined and operationalized as control or influence over others, alternative conceptualizations define power as the ability to meet various fundamental needs. We argue that this conceptualization may better capture how marginalized minority group members understand their group's power or powerlessness. However, there is little research examining how people themselves construe group-based power. The present study, therefore, used qualitative inquiry to examine perceived ingroup power among Asian Americans, an underrepresented racial minority group with an ambivalent power status in society. Reflexive thematic analysis of 25 interviews illustrated the relevance of Prilleltensky's (<i>J. Community Psychol</i>., <i>36</i>, 2008, 116) psychopolitical conceptualization of power. Specifically, we identified eight themes that reflect various context-specific construals of power as oppression, wellness and liberation. Additionally, the findings suggest the need to consider intragroup heterogeneity in power and to situate how power is understood in the given sociopolitical, structural context.</p>","PeriodicalId":48304,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Social Psychology","volume":"63 4","pages":"2135-2157"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/bjso.12777","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Different power perceptions based on socially situated needs: Findings from a qualitative study among Asian Americans\",\"authors\":\"Hu Young Jeong, Johanna Ray Vollhardt, Michelle S. Twali, John Tawa\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/bjso.12777\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>While power is often defined and operationalized as control or influence over others, alternative conceptualizations define power as the ability to meet various fundamental needs. We argue that this conceptualization may better capture how marginalized minority group members understand their group's power or powerlessness. However, there is little research examining how people themselves construe group-based power. The present study, therefore, used qualitative inquiry to examine perceived ingroup power among Asian Americans, an underrepresented racial minority group with an ambivalent power status in society. Reflexive thematic analysis of 25 interviews illustrated the relevance of Prilleltensky's (<i>J. Community Psychol</i>., <i>36</i>, 2008, 116) psychopolitical conceptualization of power. Specifically, we identified eight themes that reflect various context-specific construals of power as oppression, wellness and liberation. Additionally, the findings suggest the need to consider intragroup heterogeneity in power and to situate how power is understood in the given sociopolitical, structural context.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48304,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British Journal of Social Psychology\",\"volume\":\"63 4\",\"pages\":\"2135-2157\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/bjso.12777\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British Journal of Social Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjso.12777\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Social Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjso.12777","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Different power perceptions based on socially situated needs: Findings from a qualitative study among Asian Americans
While power is often defined and operationalized as control or influence over others, alternative conceptualizations define power as the ability to meet various fundamental needs. We argue that this conceptualization may better capture how marginalized minority group members understand their group's power or powerlessness. However, there is little research examining how people themselves construe group-based power. The present study, therefore, used qualitative inquiry to examine perceived ingroup power among Asian Americans, an underrepresented racial minority group with an ambivalent power status in society. Reflexive thematic analysis of 25 interviews illustrated the relevance of Prilleltensky's (J. Community Psychol., 36, 2008, 116) psychopolitical conceptualization of power. Specifically, we identified eight themes that reflect various context-specific construals of power as oppression, wellness and liberation. Additionally, the findings suggest the need to consider intragroup heterogeneity in power and to situate how power is understood in the given sociopolitical, structural context.
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.