Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T06:01:56.591Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Conciliation and meta-contrast are important for understanding how people assign group memberships during conflict situations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2022

Mark Levine Open the ORCID record for Mark Levine [Opens in a new window]  and
Richard Philpot
Mark Levine
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YF, UK [email protected] [email protected]://www.lancaster.ac.uk/people-profiles/mark-levinehttps://www.lancaster.ac.uk/psychology/about-us/people/richard-philpot
Richard Philpot
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YF, UK [email protected] [email protected]://www.lancaster.ac.uk/people-profiles/mark-levinehttps://www.lancaster.ac.uk/psychology/about-us/people/richard-philpot
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Pietraszewski misrepresents both the nature of behaviour in conflict and the ability of psychology to theorise the relational properties of group designation. At the behavioural level, he focusses exclusively on “attack,” when consolation/care in conflict is equally present and important. At the theoretical level, he ignores existing psychological work on how group perception is shaped by the meta-contrast principle.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 45 , 2022 , e112
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

Bruner, J. S. (1957). On perceptual readiness. Psychological Review, 64(2), 123–152. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043805CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Waal, F. B. (2000). Primates – A natural heritage of conflict resolution. Science, 289(5479), 586–590. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.289.5479.586CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ejbye-Ernst, P., Lindegaard, M. R., & Bernasco, W. (in press). A CCTV-based analysis of target selection by guardians intervening in interpersonal conflicts. European Journal of Criminology, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370820960338Google Scholar
Haslam, S. A. (2004). Psychology in organizations. Sage.Google Scholar
Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D., & Levine, M. (2012). When other people are heaven, when other people are hell: How social identity determines the nature and impact of social support. In Jetten, J., Haslam, C., & Haslam, S. A. (Eds.), The social cure: Identity, health, and well being (pp. 157–174). Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Levine, M., Taylor, P. J., & Best, R. (2011). Third parties, violence, and conflict resolution: The role of group size and collective action in the microregulation of violence. Psychological Science, 22(3), 406–412. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611398495CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liebst, L. S., Philpot, R., Bernasco, W., Dausel, K. L., Ejbye-Ernst, P., Nicolaisen, M. H., & Lindegaard, M. R. (2019). Social relations and presence of others predict bystander intervention: Evidence from violent incidents captured on CCTV. Aggressive Behavior, 45(6), 598–609. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21853CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liebst, L. S., Philpot, R., Levine, M., & Lindegaard, M. R. (2021). Cross-national CCTV footage shows low victimization risk for bystander interveners in public conflicts. Psychology of Violence, 11(1), 11–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Philpot, R. (2017). Beyond the dyad: The role of groups and third-parties in the trajectory of violence. Open Research Exeter, University of Exeter.Google Scholar
Philpot, R., Liebst, L. S., Levine, M., Bernasco, W., & Lindegaard, M. R. (2020a). Would I be helped? Cross-national CCTV footage shows that intervention is the norm in public conflicts. American Psychologist, 75(1), 66–75. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Philpot, R., Liebst, L. S., Lindegaard, M. R., Verbeek, P., & Levine, M. (2020b). Reconciliation in human adults: A video-assisted naturalistic observational study of post conflict conciliatory behaviour in interpersonal aggression. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/9e4rfGoogle Scholar
Reicher, S. (2004). The context of social identity: Domination, resistance, and change. Political Psychology, 25(6), 921–945. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00403.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salzarulo, L. (2004). Formalizing self-categorization theory to simulate the formation of social groups. In Hernández, C., López-Paredes, A., Pajares, J., & Galán, J. M. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference of European Social Simulation Association. University of Valladolid.Google Scholar
Salzarulo, L. (2006). A continuous opinion dynamics model based on the principle of meta-contrast. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 9(1), 1–13.Google Scholar
Smith, J. R., & Hogg, M. A. (2008). Social identity and attitudes. In Crano, W. D., & Prislin, R. (Eds.), Attitudes and attitude change (pp. 337–360). Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory (pp. x, 239). Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar