Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T07:29:18.275Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Extreme self-sacrifice beyond fusion: Moral expansiveness and the special case of allyship

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 December 2018

Daniel Crimston  and
Matthew J. Hornsey
Daniel Crimston
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia. [email protected]@psy.uq.edu.auhttps://psychology.uq.edu.au/profile/2698/dan-crimstonhttps://psychology.uq.edu.au/profile/2236/matthew-hornsey
Matthew J. Hornsey
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia. [email protected]@psy.uq.edu.auhttps://psychology.uq.edu.au/profile/2698/dan-crimstonhttps://psychology.uq.edu.au/profile/2236/matthew-hornsey
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

As a general theory of extreme self-sacrifice, Whitehouse's article misses one relevant dimension: people's willingness to fight and die in support of entities not bound by biological markers or ancestral kinship (allyship). We discuss research on moral expansiveness, which highlights individuals’ capacity to self-sacrifice for targets that lie outside traditional in-group markers, including racial out-groups, animals, and the natural environment.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 41 , 2018 , e198
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

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.)

References

Crimston, D., Bain, P. G., Hornsey, M. J. & Bastian, B. (2016) Moral expansiveness: Examining variability in the extension of the moral world. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 111(4):636–53. doi:10.1037/pspp0000086.Google Scholar
Crimston, D., Hornsey, M. J., Bain, P. G. & Bastian, B. (2018) Toward a psychology of moral expansiveness. Current Directions In Psychological Science 27(1):14–19. doi: 10.1177/0963721417730888.Google Scholar
Droogendyk, L., Wright, S. C., Lubensky, M. & Louis, W. R. (2016) Acting in solidarity: Cross-group contact between disadvantaged group members and advantaged group allies. Journal of Social Issues 72(2):315–34. doi: 10.1111/josi.12168.Google Scholar
Mullen, E. & Skitka, L. J. (2006) Exploring the psychological underpinnings of the moral mandate effect: Motivated reasoning, group differentiation, or anger? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 90(4):629–43. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.90.4.629.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (2011) The better angels of our nature: Why violence has declined. Viking.Google Scholar
Singer, P. (1981) The expanding circle: Ethics and sociobiology. Farrar, Straus & Giroux.Google Scholar
Skitka, L. J., Bauman, C. W. & Sargis, E. G. (2005) Moral conviction: Another contributor to attitude strength or something more? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 88(6):895–917. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.88.6.895.Google Scholar
van Zomeren, M., Postmes, T., Spears, R. & Bettache, K. (2011) Can moral convictions motivate the advantaged to challenge social inequality? Extending the social identity model of collective action. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 14(5):735–53. doi: 10.1177/1368430210395637.Google Scholar