Advertisement

Gruppendynamik und Organisationsberatung

, Volume 44, Issue 1, pp 25–36 | Cite as

Wann helfen wir einander? Befunde zur Bedeutung der Gruppenzugehörigkeit

  • Cornelia Edding
Hauptbeiträge

Zusammenfassung

Ausgehend von der Theorie der sozialen Identität stellt die gruppenbezogene Hilfeforschung fest: Wir helfen einander, wenn wir einer gefühlten gleichen Gruppe angehören. Fremden helfen wir, wenn die Normen unserer eigenen Gruppe es fordern oder wenn dieses Helfen verschiedenen eigenen Interessen dient. Es gibt politische und ökonomische Wünsche, die Hilfebereitschaft zu beeinflussen. Bisher erfolgreich war v. a. die Strategie der Inklusion. Einige relevante Experimente werden beschrieben.

Schlüsselwörter

Helfen Prosoziales Verhalten Soziale Identität Gruppenzugehörigkeit Inklusion 

In-group and out-group helping. Some empirical results

Abstract

How are prosocial behavior and group membership connected? Based on the theory of social identity social psychologists found: People help each other when they feel they belong to the same group (In-Group helping). Out-Group helping occours too, but for different, if you wish: selfish, reasons. To the extent one can manipulate the feeling of belonging it is possible to change the willingsness to help others.

Keywords

Prosocial behavior Social identity Inclusion Helping strangers 

Literatur

  1. Edding, C. (2009). Kleingruppenforschung – Geschichte, aktueller Stand, Bedeutung für die Praxis. In C. Edding & K. Schattenhofer (Hrsg.), Handbuch Alles über Gruppen (S. 47–83). Weinheim: Beltz.Google Scholar
  2. Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Willis, H. (2002). Inter-group bias. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 575–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hogg, M. A. (2005). Social identity and leadership. In D. M. Messik & R. M. Kramer (Hrsg.), The psychology of leadership: New perspectives and research (S. 53–80). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  5. Hopkins, N., Reicher, S., Harrison, K., Cassidy, C., Bul, R., & Levine, M. (2007). Helping to improve the group stereotype: On the strategic dimension of prosocial behavior. 33, 776–788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Jonas, E., Schimel, J., Greenberg, J., & Pyszczynski, T. (2002). The scrooge effect: Evidence that mortality salience increases prosocial attitudes and behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1342–1353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Van Leeuwen, E. (2007). Restoring identity through outgroup helping: Beliefs about international aid in response to the December 2004 tsunami. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 661–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Van Leeuwen, E., & Täuber, S. (2010). The strategic side of outgroup helping. In S. Stürmer & M. Snyder (Hrsg.), The psychology of prosocial behavior (S. 81–99). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  9. Levine, M., Cassidy, C., Brazier, G., & Reicher, S. (2002). Self-categorization and bystander non-intervention: Two experimental studies. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 1452–1463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Levine, M., Prosser, A., Evans, D., & Reicher, S. (2005). Identity and emergency intervention: How social group membership and inclusiveness of group boundaries shape helping behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 443–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Levine, M., & Cassidy, C. (2010). Groups, identities and bystander behavior. In S. Stürmer & S. Snyder (Hrsg.), The psychology of prosocial behavior (S. 209–222). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  12. Nadler, A. (2002). Inter-group helping releations as power relations: Maintaining or challenging social dominance between groups through helping. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 487–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Nadler, A., & Halabi, S. (2006). Intergroup helping as status relations: Effects of status stability, identification and type of help on receptivity to high status group’s help. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 97–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Neuberger, O. (2007). Mikropolitik und Moral in Organisationen. Stuttgart: Lucius & Lucius.Google Scholar
  15. Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  16. Reicher, S., & Haslam, S. A. (2010). Beyond help. A social psychology of collective solidarity and social cohesion. In S. Stürmer & M. Snyder (Hrsg.), The psychology of prosocial behavior (S. 283–309). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  17. Schneider, M. E., Major, B., Luthanen, R., & Crocker, J. (1996). Social stigma and the potential costs of assumptive help. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 201–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Stürmer, S., & Snyder, M. (Hrsg.). (2010). The psychology of prosocial behavior. Chichester: Wiley-BlackwellGoogle Scholar
  19. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Hrsg.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (S. 33–47). Monterey: Brooks/ColeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Boitzenburger LandDeutschland

Personalised recommendations