The AMIGAS Model: Reconciling Prejudice Reduction and Collective Action Approaches Through a Multicultural Commitment in Intergroup Relations

Urbiola, Ana; McGarty, Craig; Costa-Lopes, Rui

doi:10.1177/10892680211056321

Cited by 10 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 108 publications

(150 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Equality-based intergroup cooperation doesn't contradict the quest of minority groups for autonomy and recognition of their interests and identities (Renger et al, 2017). This is consistent with recent theoretical developments that present prejudice reduction and the fight for social change as compatible under the framework of respectful intercultural dialogue and multicultural commitment (Urbiola et al, 2021). Thus, a coalitional approach to intergroup cooperation would serve to restore threatened personal motives, improving intergroup attitudes and promoting intergroup solidarity.…”

Section: Minoritiessupporting

confidence: 76%

United as One_Preprint

Bukowski¹,

Lemus²,

Potoczek³

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Global threats are often perceived as triggers of intergroup conflict and prejudice. However, threats that jointly affect in- and outgroup members can also enhance intergroup cooperation and decrease prejudice. In this research, we investigated how different appraisals of threat (to personal vs. social identity motives) and different forms of cooperation (as one group or as separate groups) predict modern prejudice towards ethnic minorities and solidarity-based helping intentions in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. In a set of four studies (N = 2,772) conducted in five countries, we found evidence that personal threats were positively related to lower levels of modern prejudice towards ethnic minorities via preferences for cooperation as separate-groups. On the contrary, social identity threats were positively related to modern prejudice via preferences for cooperation as one group. We discuss the implications of these findings for shaping equality-based intergroup relations in times of global threats.

show abstract

Section: Minoritiessupporting

confidence: 76%

United as One_Preprint

Bukowski¹,

Lemus²,

Potoczek³

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Decades of research on social categorization, discrimination, stereotypes, stigma, and intergroup relations has yielded a broad and extensive knowledge, documenting differences between groups in social experiences and associated psychological outcomes (Bowleg, 2017; Le Forestier et al., 2022; Urbiola et al., 2022). Scholars note that social categorization requires a reduction of information and context that provide the foundation for social stratification (Howard & Renfrow, 2014); yet at the same time, social identities cannot be studied separately from each other or from the social processes that maintain inequality (Rosenthal, 2016; Warner & Shields, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A reconsideration of group differences in social psychology: Towards a critical intersectional approach

Sabik,

Versey

2023

Social & Personality Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social psychology has focused on patterns of inequality (e.g., discrimination, stereotyping, stigma, intergroup relations) that underlie well‐documented disparities, often without engaging with the structural and intersectional patterns underlying these experiences. In this paper, we draw on intersectionality theory and research to illustrate how approaches to studying inequity and disparities in social psychology reflect a Western perspective, and structures work to uphold the status quo. It is argued that structures within the research process need to be made visible, both in terms of how research questions are framed, as well as on the representation within institutions responsible for producing and disseminating work addressing disparities. Engaging with intersectionality theory and research, we suggest four strategies that address individual and structural approaches to better position social psychology to contribute meaningfully to the reduction of disparate outcomes affecting minoritized individuals and groups. We suggest (a) examining and addressing the sources of inequality (e.g., addressing racism rather than the effects of racism), (b) carefully attending to language and framing in both the causes and impact of inequality and discrimination to shift the status quo in social psychology research and in society, (c) addressing representation within social psychology research, namely in critically examining representation and assumptions made about research samples, and (d) addressing representation in the “structure” of institutions. We offer these approaches, informed by intersectional theory, as tangible strategies to address some of the structural issues underlying inequality and disparities that can be addressed within social psychology.

show abstract

“…According to intergroup emotions theory, collective emotions like anger rather than prejudice toward other groups motivate collective action (Mackie et al, 2000). Thus, it appears that social movements may be characterized by negatively valenced emotions and attitudes toward majority groups and that further research is needed to clarify whether these are only specific (e.g., anger) or also more general (e.g., prejudice) in nature (see also Urbiola et al, 2022).…”

Section: Feminists' Attitudes Toward Men: Theory and Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Misandry Myth: An Inaccurate Stereotype About Feminists’ Attitudes Toward Men

Hopkins-Doyle,

Petterson,

Leach

et al. 2023

Psychology of Women Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In six studies, we examined the accuracy and underpinnings of the damaging stereotype that feminists harbor negative attitudes toward men. In Study 1 ( n = 1,664), feminist and nonfeminist women displayed similarly positive attitudes toward men. Study 2 ( n = 3,892) replicated these results in non-WEIRD countries and among male participants. Study 3 ( n = 198) extended them to implicit attitudes. Investigating the mechanisms underlying feminists’ actual and perceived attitudes, Studies 4 ( n = 2,092) and 5 (nationally representative UK sample, n = 1,953) showed that feminists (vs. nonfeminists) perceived men as more threatening, but also more similar, to women. Participants also underestimated feminists’ warmth toward men, an error associated with hostile sexism and a misperception that feminists see men and women as dissimilar. Random-effects meta-analyses of all data (Study 6, n = 9,799) showed that feminists’ attitudes toward men were positive in absolute terms and did not differ significantly from nonfeminists'. An important comparative benchmark was established in Study 6, which showed that feminist women's attitudes toward men were no more negative than men's attitudes toward men. We term the focal stereotype the misandry myth in light of the evidence that it is false and widespread, and discuss its implications for the movement.

show abstract

The AMIGAS Model: Reconciling Prejudice Reduction and Collective Action Approaches Through a Multicultural Commitment in Intergroup Relations

Cited by 10 publications

References 108 publications

United as One_Preprint

United as One_Preprint

A reconsideration of group differences in social psychology: Towards a critical intersectional approach

The Misandry Myth: An Inaccurate Stereotype About Feminists’ Attitudes Toward Men

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About