Standing up for whom? Targets’ different goals in the confrontation of discrimination

We challenge the common interpretation of targets’ immediate confrontation in reaction to discrimination as self-serving behavior and propose different underlying motivations for this phenomenon. In five online scenario studies (N_overall = 1,447), we demonstrate across different samples and contexts that targets indicate a distinct pursuit of the following self-reported confrontation goals: individual-benefit (e.g., perpetrator apologizes); group-benefit (e.g., prejudice reduction); and distancing (e.g., demonstrating that one is different from typical group members). Furthermore, meaningful associations of the pursuits of individual-benefitting goals and group-benefitting goals with group identification, disidentification, and further collective action intentions indicate that they represent different confrontation motivations: Individual-benefitting confrontation serves to cope with the individual mistreatment of discrimination, whereas group-benefitting confrontation represents a form of collective action. Distancing goals were associated with disidentification and—unexpectedly—group identification. Our results show that the phenomenon of confrontation in reaction to discrimination can be the result of different underlying psychological processes.     

The impact of psychological distance on integrative internal dialogs

Negotiators more distanced from the negotiated goal more often exhibit integrative behavior, which maximizes both their individual and joint outcomes. Based on the assumption of an analogy between interpersonal negotiations and internal dialogs simulating social relationships, an experiment was carried out. It aimed to verify if psychological distance (proximal vs. distant perspective on the situation enacted in an internal dialog) affects the processes of integration and confrontation and, consequently, increases the frequency of integrative dialogs. Data from 115 participants (56 women) were analyzed. An increase in psychological distance was found to reduce the intensity of the confrontation process and to cause an increase in the number of integrative internal dialogs.     

Exploring changes during life and career design dialogues

This article describes the processes of change that occur during career counseling based on the ‘making oneself self’ model (Guichard, 2008; Guichard, 2009). This counseling intervention process forms part of the more general paradigm of life designing (Savickas et al., 2009). The main goal for this counseling is fostering “reflexivity” of individuals with regard to their investment in their various spheres of life. Three career counseling interviews were conducted using both methods of dialogues for life and career design dialogues (LCDD) and self-confrontation (Larsen, Flesaker, & Foundation, 2008; Valach, Michel, Dey, & Young, 2002). Each interview is described with a focus on the changes perceived by the interviewees in relation to their initial reason for consulting as well as on their dialogues with the counselor, who facilitated these changes and provided support for them. The analysis of the dialogues suggests the existence of a three-step evolution supporting the changes. On the basis of these data, the discussion examines the reflexive approach in its theoretical, methodological and practical dimensions.     

Can imagined intergroup contact change (internal) dialogues on differences between ingroup and outgroup?

Several positive functions have been ascribed to integrative internal dialogues (IDs), which are based on mutual openness to a partner's viewpoint and a readiness to consider his/her arguments in order to potentially modify one's own stance. As the technique of imagined intergroup contact (IIC) favorably influences attitudes towards outgroup members, it was hypothesized that IIC would have a beneficial impact on IDs with an outgroup member when the dialogue is focused on differences between ingroup and outgroup. In the experiment, 151 people (80 women) participated. It revealed that after IIC, both the dialogue author's confrontational attitude and the interlocutor's integrative attitude decreased. Thus, IIC made participants less inclined to gain an advantage over their imagined outgroup interlocutors and more inclined to give them freedom in IDs. However, the effect was significant only when the author's involvement in ID was high or medium.     

The role of pre‐oedipal and oedipal factors in psychic life1

The Oedipus complex, a basic concept in Freudian theory, is an essential factor in the constitution of the human subject. It plays a key role in the structuring of the personality and in the orientation of desire. It is the oedipal triangular structure that precedes the pre‐oedipal situation (in a logical, not chronological, order), and not vice versa. The oedipal structure exists before the infant's biological birth. It is present in the parents' desires and identifi cations, which inexorably fall upon each subject. That is why the author believes that it is necessary to leave behind a solipsistic reading of the nuclear complex of neuroses‐a reading that is based solely on Oedipus's drive nucleus‐and take a joint and comprehensive view of Laius's and Jocasta's histories and traumatic experiences, which were invested in their son. Among these three vertices, a dynamic set of forces emerges whereby a basic, original unconscious fi eld phantasy is created that bears a unique narrative and an invisible and hermetic web made of passions and beliefs, scandals and secrets. This phantasy gives shape to an unrepeatable oedipal structure in each subject, a structure that articulates with the effects of the narcissistic and fraternal dynamic and may determine the subject's fate. This paper develops the following issues: 1) Oedipus, victimizer or victim? 2) the generational confrontation as dynamic fi eld; and 3) neuroses with a preponderance of dualistic relationships.     

The Functions of Integration and Confrontation in Internal Dialogues

While integrative and confrontational internal dialogues (IDs) are often treated as opposing and numerous positive functions are ascribed to the former, this paper assumes that integration and confrontation are not mutually exclusive but independent processes. When exploring IDs that simulate social relationships and are described by different configurations of integrative and confrontational characteristics, canonical correlation analysis revealed that in competitive dialogue, the strong confrontational attitude of the dialogue's author is accompanied by the weak integrative attitudes of both ID parties. The more the ID is based on a rivalry between the parties, the lower the levels of bond, support, and insight functions are and the higher the level of substitution is. In persuasive dialogue, the confrontational attitude of the dialogue's author is combined with the integrative attitudes of both parties. The more the ID is based on persuasion, the higher the intensity of substitution, insight, bond, support, and self-guiding is. The findings suggest a synergistic effect of co-occurring integrative and confrontational attitudes in one ID.     

Why Do Members of Disadvantaged Groups Strike Back at Perceived Negativity Towards the In‐group?

Against the background of riots in communities across London in 2011, this paper examines the implications of negative meta‐stereotypes on stigmatized group members' reactions towards members of privileged out‐groups within their communities. We hypothesized that concerns over negative opinions that the dominant out‐group is expected to hold of the in‐group (i.e. meta‐stereotypes) would be negatively associated with group members' perceptions of societal fairness and that this relationship would be mediated by members' recall of personal experiences with discrimination. We further hypothesized that views about societal fairness that are challenged in this way would lower an inclination to express discontent with the status quo via normative means while at the same time, increase nonnormative expressions. Results from two surveys (study 1, N = 50; study 2, N = 132) provided support for these hypotheses and are discussed in terms of their meaning for community relations. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The effects of social vigilantism and masculine honor beliefs on perceptions of confrontation during the COVID-19 pandemic

Varying opinions about the COVID-19 pandemic inspire different behaviors (e.g., mask-wearing), and confrontation may result between people with differing viewpoints. Individual differences associated with belief superiority (e.g., Social Vigilantism; SV) and/or pride (e.g., Masculine Honor Beliefs; MHB) likely related to third-person perceptions of pandemic confrontations. In this study (N = 237; US sample), we used vignettes in a 2 (Mask: Yes/No) ×  2(Confrontation Response: Vocal Defense/Walked Away) between-groups design to examine how SV and MHB predict perceptions of (1) responses to public confrontation about (not) wearing a mask and (2) the person being confronted. In general, mask-wearing and walking away from confrontation were perceived more positively. Higher SV was associated with more positive perceptions of seemingly morally-justified responses to confrontation (e.g., walking away when confronted for not wearing a mask, vocally defending oneself when confronted for wearing a mask). Contrarily, higher MHB were associated with more positive perceptions of non-mask-wearing. This research provides insight about how individual differences in SV and MHB relate to nuances in pandemic confrontations, and responses to confrontations, about (non)mask-wearing.     

论医疗纠纷鉴定结论的质证

近年来,医患双方的紧张关系不断显现,医疗纠纷已成为当今社会热点问题之一,人民法院受限于专业限制将医疗纠纷鉴定结论作为首要的处理医疗纠纷的基本依据.审核现有医疗纠纷鉴定规则及其程序,存在医疗知识不确定、鉴定规则不完备、鉴定内容难以掌握等因素,导致双方对鉴定结论产生疑惑,造成了当事人对裁判依据的不信任与不认可.对此,完善针对医疗鉴定的质证制度是最重要的程序和手段.目前,主要切入口是完善鉴定人到场制度和建立专家参与审判制度.     

Don’t say that!

According to pragma-dialectical methodology, a party in an argumentative discussion can be assumed to manoeuvre strategically between dialectical and rhetorical objectives. One confrontational form of strategic manoeuvring occurs when a critic charges an arguer with advancing a standpoint that has socially harmful consequences. In special situations this form of manoeuvring can be dialectically sound, for example when the standpoint is advanced in a way that damages the dialectical process. The boundary between fallacious and dialectically sound applications of this form of manoeuvring is examined by looking for the manoeuvring’s soundness conditions.