Dokument

Summary:
Numerous ongoing conflicts in the world, such as terrorist attacks and retributive reactions to such attacks, illustrate that acts of revenge are often not directed against the actual offender, but rather against third persons who are not directly involved in the original offense. Such acts of 'displaced revenge' are the hallmark of large-scale intergroup conflicts (cf. Lickel, Miller, Stenstrom, Denson, & Schmader, 2006; Lickel, 2012). Previous research investigated under which circumstances acts of displaced revenge are more likely to occur (e.g., Gaertner, Iuzzini, & O’Mara, 2008; Newheiser, Sakaowa, & Dovidio, 2012; Stenstrom, Lickel, Denson, & Miller, 2008), but has not considered whether displaced revenge can be satisfying and achieve a subjective sense of justice. However, knowing when avengers are satisfied with revenge might not only be an interesting question for and in itself, but it may also contribute to a deeper psychological insight into the goals underlying vengeful actions. Building upon the notion that direct revenge aims at delivering a message (“don’t mess with me!”; e.g., Gollwitzer & Denzler, 2009; Gollwitzer, Meder, & Schmitt, 2011), it is argued that displaced revenge alike might be satisfying and achieve a sense of justice when it effectively delivers a message to the offender other members of his or her group. To address this question and explore the psychological dynamics underlying displaced revenge, this Dissertation includes five studies which are presented in two manuscripts. All studies explored the contextual conditions under which displaced revenge can lead to the experience of satisfaction and restored justice. Studies 1 to 3 (Manuscript #1) show that displaced revenge leads to more justice-related satisfaction (but not less feelings of regret) when the group to which the offender and the target belong is highly entitative. In addition, results of Study 3 demonstrate that avengers experienced the highest level of satisfaction when the offender’s group was perceived to be strongly interactive and, at the same time, similar in appearance. Having established the effect of entitativity on justice-related satisfaction in Studies 1 to 3, Studies 4 and 5 (Manuscript #2) aimed at investigating why displaced revenge against a member of a highly entitative (vs. low entitative) group is more satisfying. The goal of Study 4 was to examine whether displaced revenge primarily serves to give targets their just deserts or whether it potentially serves to deliver a message which has to be received by the original offender. Results show that displaced revenge is satisfying, when the offender’s group continued to exist in its original form, but not when the offender left the group or when the group dissolves. Study 5 shows that displaced revenge leads to the highest levels of satisfaction when both the original offender and the target of revenge understood why revenge was taken. Taken together, the results of the present Dissertation corroborate the notion that displaced revenge is a goal-directed behavior, which serves to deliver a message to the offender and the target of displaced revenge.

Bibliographie / References

1. Staub, E. (1989). The roots of evil: The origins of genocide and other group violence. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
2. Nozick, R. (1981). Philosophical explanations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
3. Schelling, T.C. (1980). The Strategy of Conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
4. Vasquez, E. A., Wenborne, M. P., Alleyne, E., & Ellis, K. (2015). Any of Them Will Do: In- Group Identification, Out-Group Entitativity, and Gang Membership as Predictors of Group-Based Retribution. Aggression and Violent Behavior. doi: 10.1002/AB.21581
5. Rutchick, A. M., Hamilton, D. L., & Sack, J. D. (2008). Antecedents of entitativity in categorically and dynamically construed groups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 905–921. doi:10.1002/ejsp.555
6. Welbourne, J. L. (1999). The impact of perceived entitivity on inconsistency resolution for groups and individuals. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 481–508. doi:10.1006/jesp.1999.1387
7. Newheiser, A. K., Sawaoka, T., & Dovidio, J. F. (2012). Why do we punish groups? High entitativity promotes moral suspicion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 931–936. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2012.02.013
8. Pereira, A., Berent, J., Falomir-Pichastor, J. M., Staerklé, C., & Butera, F. (2015). Collective punishment depends on collective responsibility and political organization of the target group. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 56, 4–17. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2014.09.001
9. Orth, U., Berking, M., Walker, N., Meier, L. L., & Znoj, H. (2008). Forgiveness and psychological adjustment following interpersonal transgressions: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 365–385. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2007.07.003
10. doi:10.1023/A:1004778229751
11. Oswald, M. E., Hupfeld, J., Klug, S. C., & Gabriel, U. (2002). Lay-perspectives on criminal deviance, goals of punishment, and punitivity. Social Justice Research, 15, 85–98. doi:10.1023/A:1019928721720
12. Orth, U. (2003). Punishment goals of crime victims. Law and Human Behavior, 27, 173–186. doi:10.1023/A:1022547213760
13. Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 434–443. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.82.3.434
14. Weenig, M. W., & Midden, C. J. (1991). Communication network influences on information diffusion and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 734–742. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.61.5.734
15. O'Laughlin, M. J., & Malle, B. F. (2002). How people explain actions performed by groups and individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 33–48. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.1.33
16. Spencer-Rodgers, J., Hamilton, D. L., & Sherman, S. J. (2007). The central role of entitativity in stereotypes of social categories and task groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 369–388. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.3.369
17. Shnabel, N., & Nadler, A. (2008). A needs-based model of reconciliation: satisfying the differential emotional needs of victim and perpetrator as a key to promoting reconciliation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 116–132. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.116
18. Stillwell, A. M., Baumeister, R. F., & Del Priore, R. E. (2008). We're all victims here: Toward a psychology of revenge. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 30, 253–263. doi:10.1080/01973530802375094
19. Tännsjö, T. (2007). The myth of innocence: On collective responsibility and collective punishment. Philosophical Papers, 36, 295–314. doi:10.1080/05568640709485203
20. Speckhard, A., & Ahkmedova, K. (2006). The making of a martyr: Chechen suicide terrorism. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 29, 429–492. doi:10.1080/10576100600698550
21. Yzerbyt, V. Y., Castano, E., Leyens, J.-P., & Paladino, M.-P. (2000). The primacy of the ingroup: The interplay of entitativity and identification. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European Review of Social Psychology (Vol. 11, pp. 257–295). New York: Wiley. doi:10.1080/14792772043000059
22. Washburn, A. N., & Skitka, L. J. (2014). Motivated and displaced revenge: Remembering 9/11 suppresses opposition to military intervention in Syria (for some). Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy. doi: 10.1111/asap.12062
23. Smith, R. A. (2007). Language of the lost: An explication of stigma communication. Communication Theory, 17, 462–485. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2007.00307.x
24. Strang, H., Sherman, L., Angel, C. M., Woods, D. J., Bennett, S., Newbury-Birch, D., & Inkpen, N. (2006). Victim evaluations of face-to-face restorative justice conferences: A quasi-experimental analysis. Journal of Social Issues, 62, 281–306. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2006.00451.x
25. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed., pp. 7– 24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00066.x
26. Summerfield, D. (2002). Effects of war: Moral knowledge, revenge, reconciliation, and medicalised concepts of " recovery " . BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 325, 1105–1107. doi:10.1136/bmj.325.7372.1105
27. Victoroff, J. (2005). The mind of the terrorist: A review and critique of psychological approaches. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 49, 3–42. doi:10.1177/0022002704272040
28. Tropp, L. R., & Wright, S. C. (2001). Ingroup Identification as the Inclusion of Ingroup in the Self. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 585–600. doi:10.1177/0146167201275007
29. Rydell, R. J., & McConnell, A. R. (2005). Perceptions of entitativity and attitude change. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 99–110. doi:10.1177/0146167204271316
30. Rydell, R. J., Hugenberg, K., Ray, D., & Mackie, D. M. (2007). Implicit theories about groups and stereotyping: the role of group entitativity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 549–558. doi:10.1177/0146167206296956
31. Pedersen, W. C., Bushman, B. J., Vasquez, E. A., & Miller, N. (2008). Kicking the (barking) dog effect: the moderating role of target attributes on triggered displaced aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1382–1395. doi:10.1177/0146167208321268
32. Stenstrom, D. M., Lickel, B., Denson, T. F., & Miller, N. (2008). The roles of ingroup identification and outgroup entitativity in intergroup retribution. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1570–1582. doi:10.1177/0146167208322999
33. Shnabel, N., Nadler, A., Ullrich, J., Dovidio, J. F., & Carmi, D. (2009). Promoting reconciliation through the satisfaction of the emotional needs of victimized and perpetrating group members: The needs-based model of reconciliation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1021–1030. doi:10.1177/0146167209336610
34. Terry, D. J., & Hogg, M. A. (1996). Group norms and the attitude-behavior relationship: A role for group identification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 776–793. doi:10.1177/0146167296228002
35. Yzerbyt, V. Y., Rogier, A., & Fiske, S. T. (1998). Group entitativity and social attribution: On translating situational constraints into stereotypes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1089–1103. doi:10.1177/01461672982410006
36. Waytz, A., & Young, L. (2012). The group-member mind trade-off: Attributing mind to groups versus group members. Psychological Science, 23, 77–85. doi:10.1177/0956797611423546
37. Rubini, M., Moscatelli, S., & Palmonari, A. (2007). Increasing Group Entitativity: Linguistic Intergroup Discrimination in the Minimal Group Paradigm. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 10, 280–296. doi:10.1177/1368430207075156
38. Zeelenberg, M. & Pieters, R. (2007). A theory of regret regulation 1.1. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17, 29–35. doi:10.1207/s15327663jcp1701_6
39. Yzerbyt, V. Y., Corneille, O., & Estrada, C. (2001). The interplay of subjective essentialism and entitativity in the formation of stereotypes. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 141–155. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0502_5
40. Yzerbyt, V., Dumont, M., Wigboldus, D., & Gordijn, E. (2003). I feel for us: the impact of categorization and identification on emotions and action tendencies. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 533–549. doi:10.1348/014466603322595266
41. Roets, A., & Van Hiel, A. (2011). The role of need for closure in essentialist entitativity beliefs and prejudice: An epistemic needs approach to racial categorization. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 52–73. doi:10.1348/014466610X491567 Rothbart, M., & Taylor, M. (1992). Category labels and social reality: Do we view social categories as natural kinds? In G. R. Semin & K. Fiedler (Eds.), Language, interaction, and social cognition (pp. 11–36). London: Sage.
42. Vidmar, N. (2001). Retribution and revenge. In J. Sanders, & V. L. Hamilton (Eds.), Handbook of justice research in law (pp. 31–63). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. doi:10.2139/ssrn.224754
43. Wilder, D. A. (1978). Perceiving persons as a group: Effects on attributions of causality and beliefs. Social Psychology, 41, 13–23. doi:10.2307/3033593
44. Rupp, D. E., & Bell, C. M. (2010). Extending the deontic model of justice: Moral self- regulation in third-party responses to injustice. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20, 89–106. doi:10.5840/beq20102017
45. Wilder, D. A. (1986). Social categorization: Implications for creation and reduction of intergroup bias. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 293–355). New York: Academic.
46. Waldmann, P. (2001). Revenge without rules: On the renaissance of an archaic motif of violence. Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, 24, 435–450. doi:
47. Sherman, S. J., & Percy, E. J. (2011). The psychology of collective responsibility: When and why collective entities are likely to be held responsible for the misdeeds of individual members. Journal of Law and Policy, 19, 137–170.
48. Wilder, D., & Simon, A. F. (1998). Categorical and dynamic groups: Implication for social perception and intergroup behavior. In C. Sedikides, J. Schopler, & C. A. Insko (Eds.), Intergroup cognition and intergroup behavior (pp. 27–44). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
49. Skitka, L. J., Saunders, B., Morgan, G. S., & Wisneski, D. (2009). Dark clouds and silver linings: Sociopsychological responses to September 11, 2001. In M. Morgan (Ed.), The day that changed everything? Looking at the impact of 9-11 (Vol. 3, pp. 63–80).
50. Solomon, R. C. (1999). Justice v. vengeance: On law and the satisfaction of emotion. In S. A. Bandes (Ed.), The passions of law (pp. 123–148). New York: University Press.
51. Tripp, T.M., & Bies, R.J. (1997). What's good about revenge? The avenger's perspective. In R. J. Lewicki, R. J. Bies, and B. H. Sheppard (Eds.), Research on negotiation in organizations (Vol. 6, pp. 145–160). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
52. Sheehy, P. (2006). Holding them responsible. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 30, 74–93.
53. Schumann, K., & Ross, M. (2010). The benefits, costs, and paradox of revenge. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4, 1193–1205. doi:10.1111/j.1751-
54. Wenzel, M., Okimoto, T. G., Feather, N. T., & Platow, M. J. (2008). Retributive and restorative justice. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 375–389. doi:10.1007/s10979-007- 9116-6
55. Stuckless, N., & Goranson, R. (1992). The vengeance scale: Development of a measure of attitudes toward revenge. Journal of Social Behaviour and Personality, 7, 25–42.
56. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In S.

Das Dokument ist im Internet frei zugänglich - Hinweise zu den Nutzungsrechten