A tale of two motives
Why do people sometimes stand up for groups that have been mistreated by members of their own group? This dissertation examines the psychological motives behind such acts of solidarity. Across eight studies involving 2,819 participants from several European contexts, the research investigates how members of socially advantaged groups respond when people from their own group harm disadvantaged groups. Examples include discrimination against lower-educated individuals, hostility towards refugees, and harmful actions by political leaders or government institutions.
The findings reveal two distinct motives for solidarity. Some people are primarily motivated by concerns about their group’s reputation. When wrongdoing threatens the public image of their group, they are more likely to support victims in ways that help restore that image. Others are motivated by concerns about justice. They are more likely to focus on the unfair treatment of victims and support actions aimed at addressing that injustice, even when such actions challenge their own group. Importantly, these motives are shaped by social identification. That is, how strongly people feel connected to their group. Strong identifiers tend to be driven more by image concerns, whereas weaker identifiers are more strongly motivated by justice concerns.
Together, the findings show that solidarity is not driven by a single motive. Understanding these different pathways can help explain when people are willing to challenge wrongdoing by members of their own group, and contribute to more inclusive and cohesive societies.