The Social Causes and Political Consequences of Group Empathy

Recent scholarship has discovered significant racial/ethnic group variation in response to political threats such as immigration and terrorism. Surprisingly, minority groups often simultaneously perceive themselves to be at greater risk from such threats and yet still prefer more open immigration policies and civil liberties protections. We suggest a group‐level empathy process may explain this puzzle: Due to their higher levels of empathy for other disadvantaged groups, many minority group members support protections for others even when their own interests are threatened. Little is known, however, about the unique properties of group empathy or its role in policy opinion formation. In this study, we examine the reliability and validity of our new measure of group empathy, the Group Empathy Index (GEI), demonstrating that it is distinct from other social and political predispositions such as ethnocentrism, social dominance orientation, authoritarianism, ideology, and partisanship. We then propose a theory about the development of group empathy in reaction to life experiences based on one's race/ethnicity, gender, age, and education. Finally, we examine the power of group empathy to predict policy attitudes and political behavior.     

Enacting national concerns: Anglo‐British accounts of the 2002 Royal Golden Jubilee

Although the study of national identity in social psychology has examined the various ways in which the national group is ‘imagined’, little attention has been paid to the many collective national commemorations, celebrations and rituals of state assumed to unite the nation. This is surprising given the number of celebrations and commemorations which fill the calendars of modern nations throughout the world and which are assumed by social scientists to play some part in the reproduction of the national community. Taking the British Royal Golden Jubilee celebrations of 2002, the present study examines how understandings of Anglo‐British national identity are manifest in conversational interviews during and after these events. In line with previous examinations of Anglo‐Britishness, our respondents typically resisted imagining the national community as a homogenous whole and distanced themselves from depictions of the Jubilee as a nationalistic event. Support for the Jubilee was contingent upon the event being apolitical and inclusive. We suggest that such collective national events could potentially facilitate ways of imagining the national community in terms of diversity and inclusivity rather than homogeneity and exclusivity. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Indigenous Rights in Chile: National Identity and Majority Group Support for Multicultural Policies

We examine support for policies affecting indigenous ethnic minorities in Chile. Specifically, we examine the role of national group definitions that include the largest indigenous group—the Mapuche—in different ways. Based on questionnaire data from nonindigenous Chilean students (N = 338), we empirically distinguish iconic inclusion, whereby the Mapuche are seen as an important part of Chile's history and identity on the one hand, from egalitarian inclusion, which represents the Mapuche as citizens of equal importance to the nonindigenous majority on the other. Both forms of inclusion positively predict support for indigenous rights, independent of participants' political affiliation, strength of national identification, and social distance. A second study (N = 277) replicates this finding whilst controlling for right‐wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, blind patriotism, and constructive patriotism. It also finds iconic inclusion to be predictive of a pro‐Mapuche position regarding the unrest over the issue of ancestral land in 2009. We conclude that understanding how national identity affects attitudes about minority rights necessitates appreciating the importance of particular meanings of nationality, and not only the strength of identification.     

Is There a Backlash Against Immigration From Richer Countries? International Hierarchy and the Limits of Group Threat

Why do immigrants from particular countries systematically face more opposition? To resolve inconsistencies of prevailing group‐threat theories, I reintroduce a long‐standing hypothesis stipulating that people have a disposition for maintaining status hierarchy between ethnic groups. Accordingly, independent of perceived economic or cultural threat, natives are more likely to prefer immigrant groups of higher status based on the development level of the group's national origin. To test this argument, I exploit a substantial provincial variation of immigration flows and attitudes in Spain—one of the only countries that has received immigrants from both less and more developed countries. Consistent with my hypothesis, I demonstrate that anti‐immigration attitudes are more widespread in areas with immigrants from less developed countries regardless of their economic and cultural characteristics. I further document that many voters perceive stable group hierarchies and that these preferences are more predictive of anti‐immigration attitudes in lower‐status immigration contexts. Overall, these results suggest that even culturally similar and economically beneficial immigrant groups from poorer countries can face public opposition due to their lower‐status national origin, highlighting the independent role of group‐status perceptions in politics.     

Colonial Mentality and Mental Health Help‐Seeking of Filipino Americans

Filipino Americans present with very low rates of mental health help‐seeking. Because of the colonial history between the Philippines and the United States, the authors examined how colonial mentality and internalized oppression, along with ethnic identity, acculturation, and social support, were related to mental health help‐seeking attitudes of Filipino Americans (N = 410). Furthermore, the authors investigated how colonial mentality affects the ethnic identity of Filipino Americans. Major findings included that colonial mentality was negatively related to ethnic identity development and social support, and higher levels of colonial mentality significantly predicted negative mental health help‐seeking attitudes above and beyond ethnic identity, acculturation, social support, and demographic variables. Implications for the counseling profession are considered.     

On the psycho-social conditions of psychotherapy in post-Soviet Georgia

The article describes the social, economic and political conditions that influence the practice of psychotherapy in post-Soviet Georgia. The author looks at the specific Soviet and post-Soviet mentalities and defines certain characteristics of these mentalities, the master-slave relationship between the people and the State, the materialistic world view, the nostalgia for the past and idealization of Soviet times, the identity crisis produced by the socio-economic traumas. The paper then provides clinical illustrations of these phenomena and shows how they can interfere with the process of psychotherapy.     

Gliding Body – Sitting Body. From Bodily Movement to Cultural Identity*

Bodily movement has a deeper meaning than modern sport science might recognize. It can have religious undertones, and in modern societies, it is sometimes related to the building of national identity. In the study, two cases of bodily practice are compared. Norwegian ski has a relation to friluftsliv (outdoor activities) and is highly significant for modern Norwegian identity. Indian yoga is related to the traditional ayurveda medicine and to Hindu spirituality, and obtained an important place in the process of anti-colonial nationalism. The aim is to demonstrate how Norwegian skiing and Indian yoga as national body and movement cultures in different ways, show a complex connection between ‘ancient roots’ and modern transformations of cultural identity. Gliding on skis, sitting, and breathing in yoga make up the basis on which people have built identities of their collective ‘we’.     

Analytic Confidence and Political Decision‐Making: Theoretical Principles and Experimental Evidence From National Security Professionals

When making decisions under uncertainty, it is important to distinguish between the probability that a judgment is true and the confidence analysts possess in drawing their conclusions. Yet analysts and decision‐makers often struggle to define “confidence” in this context, and many ways that scholars use this term do not necessarily facilitate decision‐making under uncertainty. To help resolve this confusion, we argue for disaggregating analytic confidence along three dimensions: reliability of available evidence, range of reasonable opinion, and responsiveness to new information. After explaining how these attributes hold different implications for decision‐making in principle, we present survey experiments examining how analysts and decision‐makers employ these ideas in practice. Our first experiment found that each conception of confidence distinctively influenced national security professionals' evaluations of high‐stakes decisions. Our second experiment showed that inexperienced assessors of uncertainty could consistently discriminate among our conceptions of confidence when making political forecasts. We focus on national security, where debates about defining “confidence levels” have clear practical implications. But our theoretical framework generalizes to nearly any area of political decision‐making, and our empirical results provide encouraging evidence that analysts and decision‐makers can grasp these abstract elements of uncertainty.