Nurit Shnabel

Demystifying Values-Affirmation Interventions: Writing About Social Belonging Is a Key to Buffering Against Identity Threat

Two experiments examined for the first time whether the specific content of participant-generated affirmation essays—in particular, writing about social belonging—facilitated an affirmation intervention’s ability to reduce identity threat among negatively stereotyped students. Study 1, a field experiment, revealed that seventh graders assigned to a values-affirmation condition wrote about social belonging more than those assigned to a control condition. Writing about belonging, in turn, improved the grade point average (GPA) of Black, but not White students. In Study 2, using a modified “belonging-affirmation” intervention, we directly manipulated writing about social belonging before a math test described as diagnostic of math ability. The more female participants wrote about belonging, the better they performed, while there was no effect of writing about belonging for males. Writing about social belonging improved performance only for members of negatively stereotyped groups. Implications for self-affirmation theory and practice are discussed.

Feeling Both Victim and Perpetrator Investigating Duality Within the Needs-Based Model

Victimized versus perpetrating individuals or groups are known to experience enhanced needs for empowerment or acceptance, respectively. The present research examined the emotional needs and consequent anti- and prosocial behaviors (e.g., vengefulness vs. helpfulness) of individuals or groups serving both as victims and perpetrators simultaneously (“duals”). Focusing on interpersonal transgressions, Study 1 used variations of the dictator game to induce participants with victimization, perpetration, duality, or none (control). Duals showed heightened needs for both empowerment and acceptance and equal willingness to reconcile following either empowering or accepting messages from their adversaries. However, duals’ need for empowerment overrode their need for acceptance in determining behavior. Similar to victims, and unlike perpetrators, duals showed greater antisocial (rather than prosocial) behavior. Study 2 replicated this pattern on the intergroup level, inducing Israeli Jews with victimization, perpetration, or duality using a recall task referring to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

The Role of Agency and Morality in Reconciliation Processes The Perspective of the Needs-Based Model

According to the needs-based model of reconciliation, transgressions threaten victims’ sense of agency and perpetrators’ moral image. Consequently, victims and perpetrators experience heightened needs for empowerment and acceptance, respectively. Exchange interactions (e.g., expressions of apologies and forgiveness) through which victims and perpetrators satisfy each other’s needs facilitate reconciliation. We present research that has supported the model in both interpersonal and intergroup contexts. We then extend the model to “dual” conflicts, in which both parties transgress against each other and compete over the victim status, and to intergroup contexts of structural inequality. Finally, we discuss need satisfaction outside the victim-perpetrator dyad as an intriguing avenue for future research.

Help to perpetuate traditional gender roles: Benevolent sexism increases engagement in dependency-oriented cross-gender helping.

Based on theorizing that helping relations may serve as a subtle mechanism to reinforce intergroup inequality, the present research (N = 1,315) examined the relation between benevolent sexism (i.e., a chivalrous yet subtly oppressive view of women) and helping. In cross-gender interactions, the endorsement of (Studies 1, 3, and 4) or exposure to (Study 2) benevolent sexism predicted (a) mens preference to provide women with dependency-oriented help (i.e., direct assistance) rather than tools for autonomous coping, and (b) womens preference to seek dependency-oriented help rather than tools for autonomous coping. Benevolent sexism did not predict mens and womens engagement in dependency-oriented helping relations in same-gender interactions. Studies 1 and 2 examined behavioral intentions in response to a series of hypothetical scenarios; Studies 3 and 4 examined actual behavior in tests of mathematical and logical ability, and pointed to assumed partners expectations as a potential mediator. The converging evidence supports the hypothesis that benevolent sexism encourages engagement in cross-gender helping relations that perpetuate traditional gender roles.

Intergroup reconciliation: Instrumental and socio-emotional processes and the needs-based model

We discuss the complexity of the concept of intergroup reconciliation, offer our definition of it, and identify instrumental and socio-emotional processes as distinct processes that facilitate reconciliation. We then present the needs-based model, according to which conflicts threaten victims’ sense of agency and perpetrators’ moral image, and social exchange interactions that restore victims’ and perpetrators’ impaired identities promote reconciliation. We review empirical evidence supporting the model and present extensions of it to (a) contexts of structural inequality, (b) “dual” conflicts, in which both parties transgress against each other, and (c) contexts in which the restoration of positive identities is external to the victim–perpetrator dyad (e.g., third-parties’ interventions). Theoretical and practical implications, limitations, and future research directions are discussed.

Third-party intervention in intergroup reconciliation: The role of neutrality and common identity with the other conflict party

Third parties, particularly if neutral, have been found to promote instrumental conflict resolution. Using the needs-based model’s theoretical framework, we investigated whether third parties can also promote socioemotional reconciliation. Study 1 (N = 124) revealed that in the context of fraud between universities, conciliatory messages from either the other conflict party or a third party sharing common identity with it increased group members’ willingness to reconcile more than equivalent messages from a neutral third party. Replicating and extending this pattern, Study 2 (N = 177) exposed Israeli Jewish participants to texts which reminded them of historical transgressions conducted by Palestinians or against them. We found that compared to a control condition, messages supposedly conveyed by either Palestinians or Jordanians, but not by the UN, increased Israeli Jews’ willingness to reconcile with Palestinians. These effects were mediated by the extent to which the official conveying these messages was perceived as representing the other conflict party.

Group apology under unstable status relations: Perceptions of insincerity hinder reconciliation and forgiveness

This research examined the effects of structural conditions on perceptions of and responses to an apology offered by an advantaged majority group to a disadvantaged minority group. We used the dramatic regional changes of the Arab Spring to manipulate the instability of status relations between Israeli Arabs and Jews. In two studies, we found that under instability (vs. control), both Israeli Jews (advantaged group members; Study 1) and Israeli Arabs (disadvantaged group members; Study 2) perceived an apology offered to the Arab minority by the Israeli Prime Minister as insincere and manipulative (i.e., intended to serve the Jews rather than the Arabs). Perceived insincerity, in turn, led to reduced forgiveness and conciliatory tendencies among Israeli Arabs (Study 2). These findings shed light on how structural factors might render group apologies counterproductive in promoting positive intergroup relations. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Peace vision and its socio-emotional antecedents: The role of forgiveness, trust and inclusive victim perceptions

The present study conceptualized peace vision as the view of peace as desirable, feasible, and requiring substantial concessions by both parties and examined the social-emotional factors contributing to its endorsement among Israeli Jews (N = 400). In line with our theorizing, we found that trust in Palestinians and inclusive victim perceptions (the view that both conflicting groups have suffered due to the conflict) were significantly and positively associated with peace vision endorsement both directly and indirectly, through facilitating forgiveness. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of these results in terms of the sustainability of peaceful coexistence between conflicting groups.

A Whole Other Story: Inclusive Victimhood Narratives Reduce Competitive Victimhood and Intergroup Hostility

Conflict narratives, having at their core the belief that the ingroup suffered more than the outgroup (competitive victimhood), are key in maintaining conflicts. Three experiments conducted with Jewish Israelis (Study 1), Turkish Kurds (Study 2), and Americans (Study 3) tested whether conflict narratives can reduce conflict. Studies 1 and 3 showed that people respond to inclusive victimhood narratives that emphasize both ingroup and outgroup suffering with a reduction in competitive victimhood and, in turn, reduced support for aggressive policies—but only when people were relatively less concerned that acknowledgment of outgroup suffering might risk loss of third-party support. Study 2 further found that inclusive narratives reduce conflict for low-power groups, yet without being moderated by concern. Together, these studies show that inclusive victimhood narratives can reduce conflict when people are not concerned about losing third-party support. The important role of third parties in conflict resolution is discussed.

Individual Differences in System Justification Predict Power and Morality-Related Needs in Advantaged and Disadvantaged Groups in Response to Group Disparity

Guided by the needs-based model, we explored how individual differences in system justification predict group members’ needs in response to information about group-based disparities. Across two studies (N = 819), we found that among disadvantaged-group members (LGBTIQ* individuals/women) system justification was negatively related to need for power. Among advantaged-group members ([cis-]heterosexuals/men), system justification was negatively related to motivation to restore their ingroup’s moral essence (i.e., moral shame and wish that the ingroup would act more morally) but positively related to motivation to restore their ingroup’s moral image (i.e., need for positive moral image and expectation that the outgroup should acknowledge the ingroup’s morality). These results theoretically extend the needs-based model by offering a more nuanced picture of morality-related needs. Further, they underline the importance of considering individual differences in system justification for understanding advantaged- and disadvantaged-group members’ responses to social inequality.