No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Collective guilt and pro-social behaviour: Implications for Indigenous and Non-Indigenous reconciliation in Australia
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 May 2015
Abstract
The existence of collective guilt and its influence on pro-social behaviours was investigated in the context of Indigenous and Non-Indigenous reconciliation in Australia. After the presentation of one of three (negative, positive, ambiguous) one-page Australian histories, 80 psychology undergraduates (47 females) from the Northern Territory University, aged from 18-50 years, indicated their level of national identity, perceived in-group variability, feelings of collective guilt, and how participants and the government should compensate Indigenous groups. Participants were also shown an internet petition, a ‘Sorry list’ apologising to Indigenous Australians, to which they could add their name. Perceptions of in-group variability, collective guilt, and out-group compensation were found to be dependent on participants' level of national identity. In order to facilitate reconciliation, the present data indicate psychographic segmentation of the Australian population, in order to tailor specific reconciliation information to these groups.
- Type
- Short papers
- Information
- South Pacific Journal of Psychology , Volume 11 , Issue 2: Special Issue: Community Development in North Australia , 1999 , pp. 89 - 94
- Copyright
- Copyright © University of Papua New Guinea and the Centre for Southeast Asian Studies, Northern Territory University, Australia 1999
References
Bennett, S. (1999). White Politics and Black Australians. St Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Bonaiuto, M., Breakwell, G.M., & Cano, I. (1996). Identity processes and environmental threat: The effects of nationalism and local identity upon perception of beach pollution. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 6, 157–175.3.0.CO;2-W>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunton, R. (1993). Black Suffering, White Guilt? Aboriginal Disadvantage and the Royal Commission into Deaths in Custody. West Perth: Institute for Public Affairs.Google Scholar
Cialdini, R. B., Darby, B. L., & Vincent, J. E. (1973). Transgression and altruism: A case for hedonism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 9, 502–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cunningham, M. R., Steinberg, J., & Grev, R. (1980). Wanting to and having to help: Separate motivations for positive mood and guilt-induced helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 181–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ditto, P. H., & Lopez, D. F. (1992). Motivated scepticism: Use of differential decision criteria for preferred and non-preferred conclusions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 568–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doosje, B., Branscombe, N. R., Spears, R., & Manstead, A. S. R. (1998). Guilty by Association: When one's group has a negative history. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 872–886.10.1037/0022-3514.75.4.872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kunda, Z. (1987). Motivation and inference: Self-serving generation and evaluation of evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 636–647.Google Scholar
Steele, S. (1990). White guilt. In Steele, S. (Ed), The content of our character: A new vision of race in America (pp. 77–92). New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Tajfel, H. (1978). Inter-individual behaviour and inter-group behaviour. In Tajfel, H. (Ed.) Differentiation between social groups (pp. 27–60). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Tajfel, H. (1970). Experiments in intergroup discrimination. Scientific American, 223, 96–102.Google Scholar
Turner, J. C. (1985). Social categorisation and self-concept: A social-cognitive theory of group behaviour. In Lawler, J. E. (Ed), Advances in Group Processes (Vol. 2) (pp. 77–122). Greenwich, CONN: JAI Press.Google Scholar