Volume 50, Issue 3 p. 485-504
THEORY ARTICLE

Bringing together humanistic and intergroup perspectives to build a model of internalisation of normative social harmdoing

Catherine E. Amiot

Corresponding Author

Catherine E. Amiot

Université du Québec à Montréal, ‎Montreal, QC, Canada

Correspondence

Catherine E. Amiot, Université du Québec à Montréal, ‎Montreal, QC, Canada.

Email: [email protected]

Search for more papers by this author
Morgana Lizzio-Wilson

Morgana Lizzio-Wilson

The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Qld, Australia

Search for more papers by this author
Emma F. Thomas

Emma F. Thomas

Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia

Search for more papers by this author
Winnifred R. Louis

Winnifred R. Louis

The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Qld, Australia

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 27 December 2019
Citations: 10

Abstract

This article introduces a model of the internalisation of normative social harmdoing: the MINSOH. This model seeks to explain how group members internalise harmful social norms such that they personally endorse their groups' normative actions. To this aim, the MINSOH integrates two divergent yet complementary theoretical perspectives: self-determination theory and the social identity approach. These perspectives differ in their basic assumptions about the possibility for harm to become internalised, yet when integrated, they provide a powerful account of how harmdoing can become internalised. The MINSOH proposes specific conditions under which harmful normative actions become accepted by group members. This article outlines multiple self-determined motivations for harmdoing and discrete group processes that enable harmdoing to be internalised and autonomously enacted, and reviews factors that facilitate (i.e., strong/unique/comparative social identification; endorsement of ideological justifications) and block the internalisation process (presence of multiple identities/diverging norms; inclusive superordinate identity). Directions for future research are then discussed.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.