Search

This article examines how ideological frames, certain context factors and emotions influence choice of a retributory, retaliatory or reconciliatory reaction in intergroup conflict situations. Hindu and Muslim respondents supporting secular multiculturalism and composite culturalism gave their reactions to three norm-violating situations of varying intensities. Multinomial logistic regression was used to predict preferred reactions across situations. Reconciliation in comparison to retaliation and retribution was the most preferred reaction of both Hindus and Muslims. Ideological beliefs also predicted preferred reactions of respondents. Muslims with composite culture beliefs preferred retribution over reconciliation in two out of three situations, while Hindus having composite cultural beliefs preferred reconciliation over retaliation only in one situation. Positive out-group attitudes favoured a reconciliatory reaction in both groups. Anger and fear influenced choice of reactions of Hindus but not of Muslims. For Hindus and Muslims, resource power favoured choosing retribution over reconciliation. However, Muslims with greater retaliatory power chose retaliation. Own group identity and fraternalistic relative deprivation (FRD) played only a minor role.

The present study investigates emotional reactions that follow norm violations involving Hindus and Muslims in India. It also studies how in-group’s emotional reaction is predicted by the emotion that the group experiences in tandem with certain contextual factors, such as, fraternal relative deprivation (FRD), social identity, power to harm and resource power. Data were collected on 221 Hindus and 167 Muslims. Three different types of norm-violating situations were presented and subjects were asked to rate the extent to which they and their group will experience anger, fear or anxiety in such situations. Respondents were asked to choose between conciliation, retaliation and retribution as one of their preferred emotional reactions. Although, conciliation was the most preferred reaction for resolving conflicts for both, Hindus and Muslims, this preference changed from one situation to another. Across three situations, anger was the most intensely experienced emotion followed by the emotions of anxiety and fear. Anger evoked retaliatory reactions among Hindus while Muslims preferred a retributory reaction in situations involving strong norm violations. Multinomial logistic analysis showed that no emotion was consistently related with the preferred emotional reaction to norm violations across situations. For Hindus, fear in Situation 1 (personal humiliation of a group member) was associated with preference for retribution but with conciliation in Situation 3 (mocking of Gods and Goddesses). Similarly, anger enhanced the odds of Hindus for engaging in retaliation in Situation 2 (obstruction of in-group’s religious procession). As for Muslims, contextual factors, such as, resource power, power to harm in association with different negative emotions increased the odds for their preferred choices of emotional reaction.

The present chapter provides an understanding of the process of identity construction in a pluralistic society, its contestation, and its implications for intergroup harmony. Identity construction does not occur in a vacuum; there are personal and social factors that play a major role. The process of identity construction may involve negotiations and at times contestations, which provide a context wherein personal and social identities can be understood. The chapter discusses the nature, antecedents, and challenges in identity construction and attempts to delineate how multiple identities can coexist and augur for a harmonious society. The understanding of pluralities of human identity is important for harmony. With multiple identities, the scope for sharing common ground increases and the boundaries between groups become more porous. It is the sharing of spaces between groups that offer an opportunity for intergroup harmony today.

Eight hundred and twenty-nine adults, drawn from 12 locations in all four parts of India, participated in a study that explored the joint effects of Indians’ discrepant mindset, context sensitivity, and quality of environment on their modes of behavior. Respondents also predicted how a person is likely to change his behavior when the conditions in which he works change from disabling to enabling. The findings showed that the two most dominant modes of behavior-self-serving calculative and achieving high positive goal — coexisted, but were differently caused. Context sensitivity facilitated both modes of behavior; but adequate infrastructure and friendly and helpful people in the neighborhood encouraged only achieving high positive goal behavior. On the contrary, duplicity in professing desirable but acting under realistic compulsions, poor quality of environment, and low levels of development were conducive to self-serving calculative behavior. As a situation changed from disabling to enabling, a person was likely to shift towards more positive behavior.

Residents of eight different locations in Kathmandu, four in the inner city and four on the outskirts, were interviewed about environmental stressors, mental distress, and physical symptoms. There were significant gender and location differences on all three measures. Compared to men, women reported more mental distress and more physical symptoms, but fewer environmental stressors. Compared to residents of the inner city, residents of the outskirts reported more mental distress, more physical symptoms, and fewer environmental stressors. Environmental stressors were linked to mental distress among residents in the outskirts but were not linked to mental distress among residents in the inner city. Results suggested that residents’ belief in perceived control of their lives by God partially explained this effect.

Deteriorating environmental quality is the source of a variety of grave problems facing urban residents. This article reports slum residents' perceptions and responses to air and water pollution, noise, garbage, crowding, and traffic. The respondents were 280 male and female slum dwellers in Old Delhi, New Delhi, and Allahabad in India. Results showed that slum dwellers of Delhi reported greater stress compared to the respondents of Allahabad, and they further reported greater helplessness and acceptance in coping with the environmental stressors. The results also showed gender differences in the perception of some of the environmental stressors.

Economic and environmental problems are acute stressors for the lower socio-economic class residing in the urban Indian slums. This article endeavours to explore the way in which slum dwellers subjectively perceive these stressors daily confronted by them. Data was collected on 280 slum respondents of Delhi and Allahabad Results showed that at the perceptual level both the economic and environmental stressors were not correlated Further, results indicated that respondents reported acute poverty but they failed to perceive the deteriorating environmental conditions.

Environmental problems at its roots are behavioural in nature. Researchers have become increasingly aware that individual behaviour can ameliorate or exacerbate environmental problems. This chapter explores the intricate interrelationships between humans and their environments. It investigates the impact of environment on human behaviour and also the impact of human behaviour on the environment. An attempt is made to identify the correlates of environmentally responsible behaviour. The chapter also focuses on the way in which people think about environmental issues, their concern for environmental problems and the relationship between environmental attitude and pro-environmental behaviour. Against this backdrop, the chapter enumerates policy implications of research carried out by psychologists and also discusses the gaps in research that need to be filled up for giving direction to social policy in this area.

A recent model of collective action distinguishes 2 distinct pathways: an emotional pathway whereby anger in response to injustice motivates action and an efficacy pathway where the belief that issues can be solved collectively increases the likelihood that group members take action (van Zomeren, Spears, Fischer, & Leach, 2004). Research supporting this model has, however, focused entirely on relatively normative actions such as participating in demonstrations. We argue that the relations between emotions, efficacy, and action differ for more extreme, nonnormative actions and propose (a) that nonnormative actions are often driven by a sense of low efficacy and (b) that contempt, which, unlike anger, entails psychological distancing and a lack of reconciliatory intentions, predicts nonnormative action. These ideas were tested in 3 survey studies examining student protests against tuition fees in Germany (N = 332), Indian Muslims' action support in relation to ingroup disadvantage (N = 156), and British Muslims' responses to British foreign policy (N = 466). Results were generally supportive of predictions and indicated that (a) anger was strongly related to normative action but overall unrelated or less strongly related to nonnormative action, (b) contempt was either unrelated or negatively related to normative action but significantly positively predicted nonnormative action, and (c) efficacy was positively related to normative action and negatively related to nonnormative action. The implications of these findings for understanding and dealing with extreme intergroup phenomena such as terrorism are discussed. Postprint