Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-grvzd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-29T09:25:32.093Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Advantaged- and disadvantaged-group members have motivations similar to those of defenders and attackers, but their psychological characteristics are fundamentally different

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 August 2019

Nurit Shnabel  and
Julia Becker
Nurit Shnabel
Affiliation:
The School of Psychological Sciences, Tel-Aviv University, Israel 69978shnabeln@tauex.tau.ac.ilhttps://socsci3.tau.ac.il/nurit-shnebel/
Julia Becker
Affiliation:
Institute of Psychology, University of Osnabrueck, D-49074 Osnabrueck, Germany. julia.becker@uni-osnabrueck.dehttps://www.psycho.uni-osnabrueck.de/en/subfields/social_psychology.html
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Modern societies are characterized by group-based hierarchies. Similar to attackers, disadvantaged-group members wish to change the status quo; like defenders, advantaged-group members wish to protect it. However, the psychological arrays that are typical of disadvantaged- and advantaged-group members are opposite to those of attackers and defenders – suggesting that the Attacker-Defender Game does not capture the dynamics between advantaged and disadvantaged groups.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 42 , 2019 , e141
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Becker, J. C., Kraus, M. W. & Rheinschmidt-Same, M. (2017) Cultural expressions of social class and their implications for group-related beliefs and behaviors. Journal of Social Issues 73:158–74.Google Scholar
Freire, P. (1970) Pedagogy of the oppressed. Herder and Herder.Google Scholar
Hässler, T., Shnabel, N., Ullrich, J., Arditti-Vogel, A. & SimanTov-Nachlieli, I. (2018) Individual differences in system justification predict power and morality-related needs in advantaged and disadvantaged groups in response to group disparity. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations. doi:10.1177/1368430218773403.Google Scholar
Helms, J. E. (1990) Black and white racial identity: Theory, research, and practice. Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
Herek, G. M. & McLemore, K. A. (2013) Sexual prejudice. Annual Review of Psychology 64:309–33.Google Scholar
Jost, J. T. & Banaji, M. R. (1994) The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology 33:1–27.Google Scholar
Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H. & Anderson, C. (2003) Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review 110:265–84.Google Scholar
Kraus, M. W., Piff, P. K., Mendoza-Denton, R., Rheinschmidt, M. L. & Keltner, D. (2012) Social class, solipsism, and contextualism: How the rich are different from the poor. Psychological Review 119:546–72.Google Scholar
Mummendey, A., Kessler, T., Klink, A. & Mielke, R. (1999) Strategies to cope with negative social identity: Predictions by social identity theory and relative deprivation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 76:229–45.Google Scholar
Nadler, A. & Shnabel, N. (2015) Intergroup reconciliation: Instrumental and socio-emotional processes and the need based model. European Review of Social Psychology 26:93–125.Google Scholar
Rucker, D. D., Galinsky, A. D. & Magee, J. C. (2018) The agentic-communal model of advantage and disadvantage: How inequality produces similarities in the psychology of power, social class, gender, and race. In: Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (vol. 58), ed. Olson, J. M. & Zanna, M. P., pp. 71–125. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Saguy, T., Dovidio, J. F. & Pratto, F. (2008) Beyond contact: Intergroup contact in the context of power relations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 34:432–45.Google Scholar
Sidanius, J. & Pratto, F. (1999) Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Simon, B. & Brown, R. (1987) Perceived intragroup homogeneity in minority–majority contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 53:703–11.Google Scholar