Naomi Ellemers

Some of the biggest challenges facing societies today relate to social problems, from increases in loneliness to growing polarization that undermines social cohesion across countries. Nevertheless, public policy often draws on an individualistic lens to address these societal problems. From a cross‐country comparison, we conclude that public policy implicitly follows neo‐liberal ideologies that see citizens as either autonomous and self‐reliant, or as fragile and in need of strong guidance. Previous researchers have called for a stronger focus on system change (S‐frame) in public policy, instead of seeking solutions by targeting individual behavior (I‐frame). Here, we emphasize the intermediate level speaking to how individuals connect to systems: highlighting how social groups impact health and wellbeing, social change, and can be a key determinant of societal resilience. We review research on the Social Identity Approach that has the potential to inform a group perspective (G‐frame) on public policy. First, we consider likely reasons why social groups have not received the attention they deserve in policy development. Second, we provide concrete examples to illustrate the added value of a group perspective. Third, we outline how policymakers can implement the G‐frame, to inform top‐down and bottom‐up approaches to social policy.

The aim of this research was to examine the effects of a cooperative and deterrent style, portrayed through regulatory letters, on motivation and compliance. Study 1 examined a general sample ( N = 492) in an online experiment, to assess motivation and compliance‐intentions. Study 2 focused on non‐compliant financial service providers ( N = 2803), assessing objective compliance in a field experiment. Both studies tested the impact of letters written in three different styles (i.e., neutral, cooperative, or deterrent), which did or did not include a procedural justice paragraph (resulting in six different letters). As hypothesized, the cooperative style as well as the deterrent style increased compliance (intentions), but results pointed to different motivational processes driving this effect. Whereas the cooperative style evoked internalized types of motivation through perceptions of a cooperative regulator, the deterrent style evoked external motivation and amotivation through perceptions of a deterrent regulator. In this context, procedural justice did not influence motivation or compliance (intentions). Thus, regulators that aim to stimulate internal motivation to comply, are advised to adopt a cooperative style when writing to regulatees.

To address societal challenges such as combating climate change – people have to invest in collective goals rather than pursuing selfish objectives. However, prior neuroscientific research has often revealed that reward-motivation is enhanced for self-relevant gains. Here, we draw on social psychological research showing that people have a strong desire to be moral, to examine whether the motivation for investing effort towards collective goals can be increased by appealing to people’s desire to be a morally responsible person. We conducted an ERP study examining how a moral appeal influences motivated performance and neural markers of reward processing. After reading either a moral or a non-moral appeal about one’s responsibility toward climate action, participants (N = 70) completed a time estimation task where they could earn monetary rewards for themselves or a climate-friendly charity. We compared behavioral and ERP responses on self-gain, charity-gain, and no-gain trials between appeal conditions. Results showed significant interactions in both behavioral and ERP measures. Participants performed better on self- and charity-gain trails, compared to no-gain trials, following a moral appeal, whereas no trial-type differences emerged after the non-moral appeal. Confirmatory ERP analyses revealed no effects on the SPN or RewP. Exploratory analyses on the Cue-P3, Feedback-P3, and LPP, however, showed enhanced amplitudes for charity-gain trials following the moral appeal, whereas in the non-moral appeal condition, Feedback-P3 and LPP were more positive on self-gain than no-gain trials. These findings suggest that moral appeals can enhance the reward value of pro-environmental outcomes, potentially promoting positive behavior change.

Effective Diversity and Inclusion (D&I) policy depends on both attitudinal endorsement and behavioral enactment. Yet little is known about why individuals support or fail to support D&I policy in either domain. Based on survey data from 2,639 employees in a Dutch organization, we employed k-means clustering to identify five D&I policy support profiles: Champions and Opponents (supportive or resistant in both attitude and behavior), along with three more nuanced groups—Ambivalents (ambivalent in both domains), Bystanders (attitudinally supportive but behaviorally passive), and Reluctants (behaviorally engaged but attitudinally skeptical). To examine underlying reasoning, we applied a mixed-method approach combining qualitative content analysis and Latent Class Analysis. Five distinct reasoning patterns emerged. Mapping these onto support profiles revealed that Champions and Bystanders often expressed ideological endorsement of D&I, while Reluctants voiced critical yet constructive concerns about policy implementation. Opponents expressed meritocratic beliefs or policy unawareness, and Ambivalents reported policy unawareness or inaccessibility. We additionally examined whether these patterns varied across organizational positions (managers vs. employees) and group membership (minority vs. majority). This integrative analysis demonstrates that D&I policy support and resistance are multidimensional and grounded in diverse rationales. Our findings underscore the importance of tailored strategies that address diverse motives behind support, resistance, disengagement, ambivalence, and reluctant compliance.

Purpose: While the relational demography literature has explored the consequences of surface-level (visible traits like ethnicity and gender) and deep-level (underlying attributes such as work experience) dissimilarity, it remains unclear how being dissimilar across multiple specific dimensions concurrently relates to employees' perceived inclusion. This study addresses that gap by examining how dissimilarity on specific dimensions relates to perceived inclusion and whether employees perceive less inclusion when they perceive dissimilarity on more dimensions. Additionally, we investigate whether these relationships are contingent on perceptions of organizational climate for inclusion. Design/methodology/approach: We conducted a large-scale survey study comprising 6,319 employees from a Dutch public service organization. Findings: Respondents most frequently reported perceiving dissimilarity from their coworkers in terms of personality, followed by ethnicity/culture, age, work experience, religion, sexual orientation, disability, education level, political orientation and gender (in descending order). Although dissimilarity on some dimensions was unrelated to perceived inclusion, we observed that dissimilarity on a greater number of dimensions was negatively related to perceived inclusion. Moreover, we found that the negative relationships between perceived dissimilarity and perceived inclusion were often mitigated by a positive perception of the organizational climate for inclusion. Originality/value: This is the first study to assess how the multifaceted nature of dissimilarity on a broad range of dimensions interplays with perceptions of inclusion and organizational climate, highlighting key factors influencing workplace inequality and employee well-being.

Engaging in behavior to facilitate personal growth or collective change is a form of “positive risk‐taking.” Going against the status quo entails a risk of social disapproval and can raise discomfort. When will this impede or benefit the achievement of behavioral change? Across two studies, we investigated responses during and after group sessions with a motivational speaker, in which behavioral exercises encouraged positive risk‐taking behavior. In Study 1, we investigated the moderating role of challenge and threat appraisals on the relationship between discomfort and positive risk‐taking intentions among 133 employees of 3 organizations. We hypothesized that the relationship between experienced discomfort and positive risk‐taking intentions would be positive (negative), if the discomfort was evaluated as a challenge (threat). In Study 2, we experimentally manipulated the type of discomfort (“control,” “self‐experienced discomfort,” “observed discomfort”) and measured positive risk‐taking behavior before, immediately after, and 3 weeks after the event among 146 university students. Results revealed that challenge appraisals significantly predicted positive risk‐taking intentions and long‐term behaviors. Notably, these effects were obtained regardless of whether discomfort was experienced personally or observed in others. Our research highlights the importance of challenge appraisals in motivating immediate and long‐term positive risk‐taking in group contexts. Implications and directions for future research are discussed.

Societies need cooperation that is sustainable. We argue that understanding the mechanisms of sustainable cooperation requires a connection between current analyses of individual interactions and their institutional contexts, and studies of long-term patterns of cooperation at the societal level. We propose a focus on where institutional level arrangements connect with individual level decision making, namely where people interact in families, communities, and organizations, i.e. the “meso-level” of society. Focusing on the impact of external threats, spillover effects and vicious cycles, our transdisciplinary approach highlights the importance of understanding when and how individual and institutional dynamics can undermine cooperation at this intermediate level and what is needed to secure cooperation sustainability in society.