Victims of natural or humanitarian disasters sometimes resist aid offered to them, resulting in slower recovery among victims, and feelings of rejection among aid offerers. We present two studies conducted in Indonesia that investigated motives for spurning offers of humanitarian aid. Both studies showed that beliefs in developed countries’ conspiracies lead participants to see humanitarian aid as guided by strategic rather than prosocial motives. Perceived strategic motives in turn enhanced aid resistance, whereas perceived prosocial motives decreased resistance. Conspiratorial beliefs and aid resistance were positively predicted by national collective narcissism (Study 1) and intergroup conflict (Study 2). Together, these findings show that humanitarian aid resistance arises from the recipients’ beliefs in malignant intentions of the providers.
AlvarezK.van LeeuwenE. (2011). To teach or to tell? Consequences of receiving help from experts and peers. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 397–402. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.789
3.
AlvarezK.van LeeuwenE.Montenegro-MontenegroE.van VugtM. (2018). Empowering the poor: A field study of the social psychological consequences of receiving autonomy or dependency aid in Panama. British Journal of Social Psychology, 57, 327–345. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12234
4.
Anaya-ArenasA. M.RuizA.RenaudJ. (2018). Importance of fairness in humanitarian relief distribution. Production Planning & Control, 29, 1145–1157. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2018.1542157
5.
AronsonE.WilsonT. D.AkertR. M. (2005). Social psychology (5th ed.). Prentice Hall.
6.
BatsonC. D. (1991). The altruism question: Towards a social-psychological answer. Erlbaum.
7.
BatsonC. D.EarlyS.SalvaraniG. (1997). Perspective taking: Imagining how another feels versus imagining how you would feel. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 751–758. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167297237008
8.
BekkersR.WiepkingP. (2011). A literature review of empirical studies of philanthropy: Eight mechanisms that drive charitable giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40, 924–973. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764010380927
9.
BymanD.LesserI.PirnieB.BenardC.WaxmanM. (2000). Strengthening the partnership: Improving military coordination with relief agencies and allies in humanitarian operations. Rand.
CheukW. H.RosenS. (1996). The moderating influence of perceived importance on rejected helpers’ reactions. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 18, 195–210. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp1802_6
12.
CichockaA.Golec de ZavalaA.MarchlewskaM.OlechowskiM. (2015). Grandiose delusions: Collective narcissism, secure ingroup identification and belief in conspiracies. In BilewiczM.CichockaA.SoralW. (Eds.), The psychology of conspiracy (pp. 42–61). Routledge.
13.
CichockaA.MarchlewskaM.Golec de ZavalaA.OlechowskiM. (2016). They will not control us: Ingroup positivity and belief in intergroup conspiracies. British Journal of Psychology, 107, 556–576. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12158
DanyC. (2018). Failed cooperation in times of natural disasters: Explaining the rejection of humanitarian aid. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1093/irap/lcy025
16.
EssesV. M.JacksonL. M.ArmstrongT. L. (1998). Intergroup competition and attitudes toward immigrants and immigration: An instrumental model of group conflict. Journal of Social Issues, 54, 699–724. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1998.tb01244.x
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA. G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
19.
FisherJ. D.NadlerA.LittleJ. S.SaguyT. (2008). Help as a vehicle to reconciliation, with particular reference to help for extreme health needs. In NadlerA.MalloyT.FisherJ. D. (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup reconciliation (pp. 447–468). Oxford University Press.
FiskeS. T.CuddyA. J. C.GlickP. (2006). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Science, 11, 77–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.005
22.
FiskeS. T.CuddyA. J.GlickP.XuJ. (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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878
GauntR. (2011). Effects of intergroup conflict and social contact on prejudice: The mediating role of stereotypes and evaluations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41, 1340–1355. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00762.x
Golec de ZavalaA. G. (2011). Collective narcissism and intergroup hostility: The dark side of “in-group love.”Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5, 309–320. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00351.x
27.
Golec de ZavalaA.CichockaA. (2012). Collective narcissism and anti-Semitism in Poland. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 15, 213–229. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430211420891
28.
Golec de ZavalaA.CichockaA.BilewiczM. (2013). The paradox of in-group love: Differentiating collective narcissism advances understanding of the relationship between in-group and out-group attitudes. Journal of Personality, 81, 16–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2012.00779.x
29.
Golec de ZavalaA.CichockaA.EidelsonR.JayawickremeN. (2009). Collective narcissism and its social consequences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 1074–1096. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016904
30.
Golec de ZavalaA.Dyduch-HazarK.LantosD. (2019). Collective narcissism: Political consequences of investing self-worth in the ingroup’s image. Political Psychology, 40, 37–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12569
31.
GuerraR.Golec de ZavalaA.NevesT. (2017, July). Fraternalistic deprivation, collective narcissism and intergroup hostility in Europe. Paper presented at the 18th general meeting of the European Association of Social Psychology, Granada, Spain.
32.
HalabiS.NadlerA. (2010). Receiving help: Consequences for the recipient. In StürmerS.SnyderM. (Eds.), The psychology of prosocial behavior (pp. 121–138). Wiley-Blackwell.
33.
HalabiS.NadlerA.DovidioJ. F. (2011). Reactions to receiving assumptive help: The moderating effects of group membership and perceived need for help. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41, 2793–2815. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00859.x
34.
HopkinsN.ReicherS.HarrisonK.CassidyC.BullR.LevineM. (2007). Helping to improve the group stereotype: On the strategic dimension of prosocial behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 776–788. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0146167207301023
35.
HuL. T.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
ImhoffR.BruderM. (2014). Speaking (un-)truth to power: Conspiracy mentality as a generalised political attitude. European Journal of Personality, 28, 25–43. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1930
KishtonJ. M.WidamanK. F. (1994). Unidimensional versus domain representative parceling of questionnaire items: An empirical example. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 757–765. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164494054003022
43.
LevineG.ParkinsonS. (Eds.). (1994). Experimental methods in psychology. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
44.
LevineJ. M.HoggM. A. (Eds.). (2010). Encyclopedia of group processes and intergroup relations. SAGE.
45.
LittleT. D.CunninghamW. A.ShaharG.WidamanK. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 151–173. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_1
MarchlewskaM.CichockaA.PanayiotouO.CastellanosK.BataynehJ. (2018). Populism as identity politics: Perceived in-group disadvantage, collective narcissism, and support for populism. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9, 151–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617732393
48.
MashuriA.ZaduqistiE.SupriyonoY. (2012). Perspective-taking and outgroup helping: The moderating role of warmth impression and outgroup status. International Journal of Research Studies in Psychology, 1, 7–20. https://doi.org/10.5861/ijrsp.2012.238
NadlerA. (2002). Inter-group helping relations as power relations: Maintaining or challenging social dominance between groups through helping. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 487–502. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4560.00272
52.
NadlerA.HalabiS. (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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.1.97
53.
NadlerA.Harpaz-GorodeiskyG.Ben-DavidY. (2009). Defensive helping: Threat to group identity, ingroup identification, status stability, and common group identity as determinants of intergroup help-giving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 823–834. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015968
54.
NelsonT. (2010). Rejecting the gift horse: International politics of disaster aid refusal. Conflict, Security & Development, 10, 379–402. https://doi.org/10.1080/14678802.2010.484202
RiekB. M.ManiaE. W.GaertnerS. L. (2006). Intergroup threat and outgroup attitudes: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 336–353. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1004_4
59.
RikettaM. (2005). Cognitive differentiation between self, ingroup, and outgroup: The roles of identification and perceived intergroup conflict. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 97–106. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.234
ShnabelN.NadlerA.UllrichJ.DovidioJ. F.CarmiD. (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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209336610
62.
SiemB.StürmerS. (2018). Attribution of egoistic versus altruistic motives to acts of helping. Social Psychology, 50, 53–66. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000360
63.
SiemB.von OettingenM.MummendeyA.NadlerA. (2013). When status differences are illegitimate, groups’ needs diverge: Testing the needs-based model of reconciliation in contexts of status inequality. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 137–148. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1929
64.
SmirlL. (2015). Spaces of aid. How cars, compounds and hotels shape humanitarianism. Zed Books.
TäuberS. (2017). A conceptualisation of help avoidance as motivated inaction: Implications for theory, research and society. In van LeeuwenE.ZagefkaH. (Eds.), Intergroup helping (pp. 223–248). Springer.
67.
TäuberS.van LeeuwenE. (2017). The impact of intergroup helping on third parties’ perceptions of group reputation. Social Psychology, 48, 279–292. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000320
68.
TäuberS.van ZomerenM. (2012). Refusing intergroup help from the morally superior: How one group’s moral superiority leads to another group’s reluctance to seek their help. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 420–423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.08.014
69.
Van LeeuwenE. (2017). The SOUTH model: On the pros and cons of strategic outgroup helping. In van LeeuwenE.ZagefkaH. (Eds.), Intergroup helping (pp. 131–158). Springer.
70.
Van LeeuwenE.TäuberS. (2010). The strategic side of outgroup helping. In StürmerS.SnyderM. (Eds.), The psychology of prosocial behavior: Group processes, intergroup relations, and helping (pp. 81–99). Wiley-Blackwell.
71.
Van LeeuwenE.TäuberS. (2012). Outgroup helping as a tool to communicate ingroup warmth. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 772–783. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211436253
72.
Van LeeuwenE.TäuberS.SassenbergK. (2011). Knocking on the outgroup’s door: Seeking outgroup help under conditions of task or relational conflict. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 33, 266–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2011.589339
73.
Van ProoijenJ. W.AckerM. (2015). The influence of control on belief in conspiracy theories: Conceptual and applied extensions. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 29, 753–761. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3161
74.
Van ProoijenJ. W.van VugtM. (2018). Conspiracy theories: Evolved functions and psychological mechanisms. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13, 770–788. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691618774270
75.
WakefieldJ. R.HopkinsN.GreenwoodR. M. (2013). Meta-stereotypes, social image and help seeking: Dependency-related meta-stereotypes reduce help-seeking behaviour. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 23, 363–372. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2126
76.
YokotaK.NakanishiD. (2017). The effect of intergroup conflict on ingroup cooperation and conformity: An experimental vignette study. Japanese Psychological Research, 59, 309–317. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpr.12160
77.
ZagefkaH.JamesT. (2015). The psychology of charitable donations to disaster victims and beyond. Social Issues and Policy Review, 9, 155–192. https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12013
78.
ZagefkaH.NoorM.BrownR. (2013). Familiarity breeds compassion: Knowledge of disaster areas and willingness to donate money to disaster victims. Applied Psychology, 62, 640–654. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2012.00501.x
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
