America and the Age of Genocide: Labeling a Third-Party Conflict "Genocide" Decreases Support for Intervention Among Ingroup-Glorifying Americans Because They Down-Regulate Guilt and Perceived Responsibility to Intervene  

Oleh:

Leidner, Bernhard

Jenis: Article from Journal - ilmiah internasional
Dalam koleksi: Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (http://journals.sagepub.com/home/pspc) vol. 41 no. 12 (Dec. 2015), page 1623-1645.
Topik: bystanders; intergroup conflict; genocide; language; collapse of compassion
Fulltext: PP45162341122015.pdf (1.58MB)

Ketersediaan

Perpustakaan Pusat (Semanggi) Nomor Panggil: PP45 Non-tandon: 1 (dapat dipinjam: 0) Tandon: tidak ada

Lihat Detail Induk

Isi artikel

Drawing on research on the collapse of compassion and group processes and interrelations, four experiments investigated how labeling a conflict “genocide” affects distant bystanders’ support for intervention. The genocide label (compared with no label or the label “not a genocide”) weakened Americans’ support for intervention in a crisis analogous to Darfur. Ingroup glorification moderated this effect such that the genocide label decreased support at high levels of glorification (Studies 1-3). Ingroup attachment, if anything, moderated such that the genocide label increased support at high levels of attachment (Studies 1 and 3). Importantly, the effects occurred even when controlling for conservatism (Studies 1 and 3), gender, religion, military affiliation, and level of education (Study 2). Decreases in anticipated guilt over possible nonintervention (Studies 1 and 3) among high glorifiers, and a subsequent decrease in perceived obligation to intervene (Study 3), mediated the effect of the genocide label on support for intervention.

Opini Anda

Klik untuk menuliskan opini Anda tentang koleksi ini!

Kembali