The present thesis investigates two theoretically novel processes of change in groups relevant to agents for change. Specifically, it examines the effects of group opinion change and reintegration on group members’ evaluation of ingroup change-agents. Group opinion change is operationalized as the group adopting the position advocated by a change-agent, and reintegration is operationalized as the group responding more positively towards a change-agent. These formulations of change processes within groups extend past theorizing in opinion deviance research (e.g., Festinger, 1950; Schachter, 1951; Marques & Paez, 1994) by a) examining how contextual differences that result from changes in the group may affect group members’ reactions to opinion deviates, and b) considering contingencies that result in acceptance or rejection of change-agents and their messages. In addition, this thesis investigates the psychological processes that may mediate and moderate the effects of group opinion change and reintegration on appraisals of change-agents. Specifically, it considers attributed motives of change-agents (i.e., perceived constructiveness; Hornsey, 2005), and target prototypicality (e.g., Hogg, 1993; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987) as two possible mediators of these novel effects. Finally, group members’ identification with the group is examined as a moderator of these processes. Chapter 3 presents the first two experiments that tested the effects of group opinion change on the evaluation of change-agents. Experiment 1 (N=100) was a scenario-based study that had a change-agent express a non-conformist view of giving water to an outgroup state at a time when the ingroup state was experiencing a water crisis. Experiment 2 (N=103) was a scenario-based study that looked at a change-agent who expressed pro-immigration views to the ingroup country at an earlier time when popular attitudes toward immigration were poor. In both experiments the deviants were marginalized initially because they endorsed non-conformist opinions. Depending on the condition, group opinions either shifted toward the positions advocated by the deviants or remained unchanged. Results showed group members’ target evaluations shifted as a function of group opinion change. Target evaluations became less favourable in Experiment 1, and more favourable in Experiment 2. There also was evidence that increased perceived constructiveness mediated more favourable target evaluations in Experiment 2. Chapter 4 presents the first two experiments that tested the effects of reintegration and group members’ identification on the evaluation of change-agents. Both Experiments 3 (N=103) and 4 (N=94) involved a scenario where there was a severe drought in the ingroup state. In Experiment 3, a deviant politician argued for more investment on water infrastructure 10 years earlier when water shortage was not a critical problem. Thus, the politician expressed a minority opinion. In Experiment 4, a deviant water commissioner expressed a controversial opinion to give water to an outgroup state at the height of the drought. Both deviants were marginalized/excluded initially by the group. Reintegration was manipulated by showing that popular support for the deviant had increased (Experiment 3) or the deviant was reinstated (Experiment 4), or the group did not increase support for the deviant at all (not reintegrated). Results showed that high identifiers evaluated the deviant less positively, and perceived the deviant as more destructive after he or she was reintegrated than when marginalization continued. Further, perceived destructiveness mediated the effects of reintegration and identification on trait evaluations. Experiment 4 also showed that high identifiers were less willing to support change after the deviant was reintegrated, than when marginalization continued. Finally, Chapter 5 tested the interactive effects of group opinion change and reintegration on evaluation of change-agents. I also assessed group members’ responses to change-agents in light of the group’s resistance to change even though the change-agents were right and the groups were wrong. Experiment 5 was a scenario-based study in a minimal-groups situation that had a deviant arguing for a more equitable research funding than the existing distribution. Experiment 6 was a scenario-based study on the disagreement between Galileo Galilei and the Catholic Church on planetary motion. Again, the deviants initially were marginalized by the groups. For opinion change, the groups either adopted or rejected the deviants’ opinions. For reintegration, the groups either treated the deviants more favourably or continued to reject them. Results showed that either opinion change or reintegration was sufficient to defuse negativity towards the deviants. More importantly, group members continued mistreating the deviants when the groups rejected opinion change and reintegration. That is, negativity towards the deviants was highest when opinion was unchanged, and marginalization continued. Overall, this thesis shows that group members’ evaluations of deviant agents for change can shift as a function of group opinion change and reintegration. Group opinion change and/or reintegration defuse negativity toward change-agents in the absence of psychological threat (i.e., perceived destructiveness). However, if threat is present, opinion change or reintegration may ironically elicit more group members’ negativity towards these targets. This thesis also contributes to the literature by showing how change promotes or inhibits group members’ endorsement of change-agents.

The present thesis investigates two theoretically novel processes of change in groups relevant to agents for change. Specifically, it examines the effects of group opinion change and reintegration on group members’ evaluation of ingroup change-agents. Group opinion change is operationalized as the group adopting the position advocated by a change-agent, and reintegration is operationalized as the group responding more positively towards a change-agent. These formulations of change processes within groups extend past theorizing in opinion deviance research (e.g., Festinger, 1950; Schachter, 1951; Marques & Paez, 1994) by a) examining how contextual differences that result from changes in the group may affect group members’ reactions to opinion deviates, and b) considering contingencies that result in acceptance or rejection of change-agents and their messages. In addition, this thesis investigates the psychological processes that may mediate and moderate the effects of group opinion change and reintegration on appraisals of change-agents. Specifically, it considers attributed motives of change-agents (i.e., perceived constructiveness; Hornsey, 2005), and target prototypicality (e.g., Hogg, 1993; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987) as two possible mediators of these novel effects. Finally, group members’ identification with the group is examined as a moderator of these processes. Chapter 3 presents the first two experiments that tested the effects of group opinion change on the evaluation of change-agents. Experiment 1 (N=100) was a scenario-based study that had a change-agent express a non-conformist view of giving water to an outgroup state at a time when the ingroup state was experiencing a water crisis. Experiment 2 (N=103) was a scenario-based study that looked at a change-agent who expressed pro-immigration views to the ingroup country at an earlier time when popular attitudes toward immigration were poor. In both experiments the deviants were marginalized initially because they endorsed non-conformist opinions. Depending on the condition, group opinions either shifted toward the positions advocated by the deviants or remained unchanged. Results showed group members’ target evaluations shifted as a function of group opinion change. Target evaluations became less favourable in Experiment 1, and more favourable in Experiment 2. There also was evidence that increased perceived constructiveness mediated more favourable target evaluations in Experiment 2. Chapter 4 presents the first two experiments that tested the effects of reintegration and group members’ identification on the evaluation of change-agents. Both Experiments 3 (N=103) and 4 (N=94) involved a scenario where there was a severe drought in the ingroup state. In Experiment 3, a deviant politician argued for more investment on water infrastructure 10 years earlier when water shortage was not a critical problem. Thus, the politician expressed a minority opinion. In Experiment 4, a deviant water commissioner expressed a controversial opinion to give water to an outgroup state at the height of the drought. Both deviants were marginalized/excluded initially by the group. Reintegration was manipulated by showing that popular support for the deviant had increased (Experiment 3) or the deviant was reinstated (Experiment 4), or the group did not increase support for the deviant at all (not reintegrated). Results showed that high identifiers evaluated the deviant less positively, and perceived the deviant as more destructive after he or she was reintegrated than when marginalization continued. Further, perceived destructiveness mediated the effects of reintegration and identification on trait evaluations. Experiment 4 also showed that high identifiers were less willing to support change after the deviant was reintegrated, than when marginalization continued. Finally, Chapter 5 tested the interactive effects of group opinion change and reintegration on evaluation of change-agents. I also assessed group members’ responses to change-agents in light of the group’s resistance to change even though the change-agents were right and the groups were wrong. Experiment 5 was a scenario-based study in a minimal-groups situation that had a deviant arguing for a more equitable research funding than the existing distribution. Experiment 6 was a scenario-based study on the disagreement between Galileo Galilei and the Catholic Church on planetary motion. Again, the deviants initially were marginalized by the groups. For opinion change, the groups either adopted or rejected the deviants’ opinions. For reintegration, the groups either treated the deviants more favourably or continued to reject them. Results showed that either opinion change or reintegration was sufficient to defuse negativity towards the deviants. More importantly, group members continued mistreating the deviants when the groups rejected opinion change and reintegration. That is, negativity towards the deviants was highest when opinion was unchanged, and marginalization continued. Overall, this thesis shows that group members’ evaluations of deviant agents for change can shift as a function of group opinion change and reintegration. Group opinion change and/or reintegration defuse negativity toward change-agents in the absence of psychological threat (i.e., perceived destructiveness). However, if threat is present, opinion change or reintegration may ironically elicit more group members’ negativity towards these targets. This thesis also contributes to the literature by showing how change promotes or inhibits group members’ endorsement of change-agents.

The present thesis investigates two theoretically novel processes of change in groups relevant to agents for change. Specifically, it examines the effects of group opinion change and reintegration on group members’ evaluation of ingroup change-agents. Group opinion change is operationalized as the group adopting the position advocated by a change-agent, and reintegration is operationalized as the group responding more positively towards a change-agent. These formulations of change processes within groups extend past theorizing in opinion deviance research (e.g., Festinger, 1950; Schachter, 1951; Marques & Paez, 1994) by a) examining how contextual differences that result from changes in the group may affect group members’ reactions to opinion deviates, and b) considering contingencies that result in acceptance or rejection of change-agents and their messages. In addition, this thesis investigates the psychological processes that may mediate and moderate the effects of group opinion change and reintegration on appraisals of change-agents. Specifically, it considers attributed motives of change-agents (i.e., perceived constructiveness; Hornsey, 2005), and target prototypicality (e.g., Hogg, 1993; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987) as two possible mediators of these novel effects. Finally, group members’ identification with the group is examined as a moderator of these processes. Chapter 3 presents the first two experiments that tested the effects of group opinion change on the evaluation of change-agents. Experiment 1 (N=100) was a scenario-based study that had a change-agent express a non-conformist view of giving water to an outgroup state at a time when the ingroup state was experiencing a water crisis. Experiment 2 (N=103) was a scenario-based study that looked at a change-agent who expressed pro-immigration views to the ingroup country at an earlier time when popular attitudes toward immigration were poor. In both experiments the deviants were marginalized initially because they endorsed non-conformist opinions. Depending on the condition, group opinions either shifted toward the positions advocated by the deviants or remained unchanged. Results showed group members’ target evaluations shifted as a function of group opinion change. Target evaluations became less favourable in Experiment 1, and more favourable in Experiment 2. There also was evidence that increased perceived constructiveness mediated more favourable target evaluations in Experiment 2. Chapter 4 presents the first two experiments that tested the effects of reintegration and group members’ identification on the evaluation of change-agents. Both Experiments 3 (N=103) and 4 (N=94) involved a scenario where there was a severe drought in the ingroup state. In Experiment 3, a deviant politician argued for more investment on water infrastructure 10 years earlier when water shortage was not a critical problem. Thus, the politician expressed a minority opinion. In Experiment 4, a deviant water commissioner expressed a controversial opinion to give water to an outgroup state at the height of the drought. Both deviants were marginalized/excluded initially by the group. Reintegration was manipulated by showing that popular support for the deviant had increased (Experiment 3) or the deviant was reinstated (Experiment 4), or the group did not increase support for the deviant at all (not reintegrated). Results showed that high identifiers evaluated the deviant less positively, and perceived the deviant as more destructive after he or she was reintegrated than when marginalization continued. Further, perceived destructiveness mediated the effects of reintegration and identification on trait evaluations. Experiment 4 also showed that high identifiers were less willing to support change after the deviant was reintegrated, than when marginalization continued. Finally, Chapter 5 tested the interactive effects of group opinion change and reintegration on evaluation of change-agents. I also assessed group members’ responses to change-agents in light of the group’s resistance to change even though the change-agents were right and the groups were wrong. Experiment 5 was a scenario-based study in a minimal-groups situation that had a deviant arguing for a more equitable research funding than the existing distribution. Experiment 6 was a scenario-based study on the disagreement between Galileo Galilei and the Catholic Church on planetary motion. Again, the deviants initially were marginalized by the groups. For opinion change, the groups either adopted or rejected the deviants’ opinions. For reintegration, the groups either treated the deviants more favourably or continued to reject them. Results showed that either opinion change or reintegration was sufficient to defuse negativity towards the deviants. More importantly, group members continued mistreating the deviants when the groups rejected opinion change and reintegration. That is, negativity towards the deviants was highest when opinion was unchanged, and marginalization continued. Overall, this thesis shows that group members’ evaluations of deviant agents for change can shift as a function of group opinion change and reintegration. Group opinion change and/or reintegration defuse negativity toward change-agents in the absence of psychological threat (i.e., perceived destructiveness). However, if threat is present, opinion change or reintegration may ironically elicit more group members’ negativity towards these targets. This thesis also contributes to the literature by showing how change promotes or inhibits group members’ endorsement of change-agents.

The present thesis investigates two theoretically novel processes of change in groups relevant to agents for change. Specifically, it examines the effects of group opinion change and reintegration on group members’ evaluation of ingroup change-agents. Group opinion change is operationalized as the group adopting the position advocated by a change-agent, and reintegration is operationalized as the group responding more positively towards a change-agent. These formulations of change processes within groups extend past theorizing in opinion deviance research (e.g., Festinger, 1950; Schachter, 1951; Marques & Paez, 1994) by a) examining how contextual differences that result from changes in the group may affect group members’ reactions to opinion deviates, and b) considering contingencies that result in acceptance or rejection of change-agents and their messages. In addition, this thesis investigates the psychological processes that may mediate and moderate the effects of group opinion change and reintegration on appraisals of change-agents. Specifically, it considers attributed motives of change-agents (i.e., perceived constructiveness; Hornsey, 2005), and target prototypicality (e.g., Hogg, 1993; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987) as two possible mediators of these novel effects. Finally, group members’ identification with the group is examined as a moderator of these processes. Chapter 3 presents the first two experiments that tested the effects of group opinion change on the evaluation of change-agents. Experiment 1 (N=100) was a scenario-based study that had a change-agent express a non-conformist view of giving water to an outgroup state at a time when the ingroup state was experiencing a water crisis. Experiment 2 (N=103) was a scenario-based study that looked at a change-agent who expressed pro-immigration views to the ingroup country at an earlier time when popular attitudes toward immigration were poor. In both experiments the deviants were marginalized initially because they endorsed non-conformist opinions. Depending on the condition, group opinions either shifted toward the positions advocated by the deviants or remained unchanged. Results showed group members’ target evaluations shifted as a function of group opinion change. Target evaluations became less favourable in Experiment 1, and more favourable in Experiment 2. There also was evidence that increased perceived constructiveness mediated more favourable target evaluations in Experiment 2. Chapter 4 presents the first two experiments that tested the effects of reintegration and group members’ identification on the evaluation of change-agents. Both Experiments 3 (N=103) and 4 (N=94) involved a scenario where there was a severe drought in the ingroup state. In Experiment 3, a deviant politician argued for more investment on water infrastructure 10 years earlier when water shortage was not a critical problem. Thus, the politician expressed a minority opinion. In Experiment 4, a deviant water commissioner expressed a controversial opinion to give water to an outgroup state at the height of the drought. Both deviants were marginalized/excluded initially by the group. Reintegration was manipulated by showing that popular support for the deviant had increased (Experiment 3) or the deviant was reinstated (Experiment 4), or the group did not increase support for the deviant at all (not reintegrated). Results showed that high identifiers evaluated the deviant less positively, and perceived the deviant as more destructive after he or she was reintegrated than when marginalization continued. Further, perceived destructiveness mediated the effects of reintegration and identification on trait evaluations. Experiment 4 also showed that high identifiers were less willing to support change after the deviant was reintegrated, than when marginalization continued. Finally, Chapter 5 tested the interactive effects of group opinion change and reintegration on evaluation of change-agents. I also assessed group members’ responses to change-agents in light of the group’s resistance to change even though the change-agents were right and the groups were wrong. Experiment 5 was a scenario-based study in a minimal-groups situation that had a deviant arguing for a more equitable research funding than the existing distribution. Experiment 6 was a scenario-based study on the disagreement between Galileo Galilei and the Catholic Church on planetary motion. Again, the deviants initially were marginalized by the groups. For opinion change, the groups either adopted or rejected the deviants’ opinions. For reintegration, the groups either treated the deviants more favourably or continued to reject them. Results showed that either opinion change or reintegration was sufficient to defuse negativity towards the deviants. More importantly, group members continued mistreating the deviants when the groups rejected opinion change and reintegration. That is, negativity towards the deviants was highest when opinion was unchanged, and marginalization continued. Overall, this thesis shows that group members’ evaluations of deviant agents for change can shift as a function of group opinion change and reintegration. Group opinion change and/or reintegration defuse negativity toward change-agents in the absence of psychological threat (i.e., perceived destructiveness). However, if threat is present, opinion change or reintegration may ironically elicit more group members’ negativity towards these targets. This thesis also contributes to the literature by showing how change promotes or inhibits group members’ endorsement of change-agents.

Konstanz, Univ., Diss., 2008.

Zugl.: Frankfurt (Main), Univ., Diss., 2006

A partir du cas de la politique d'aide au retour volontaire en France, cette recherche propose une interprétation des politiques d'éloignement des étrangers en situation irrégulière, telles qu'elles sont formulées à l'échelle de l'Union européenne sous l'angle du « retour ». Le principe d'expulsion est maintenant transposé dans le champ de l'action sociale, sous la forme de divers dispositifs d'assistance humanitaire qui masquent la dimension de contrainte contenue dans l'objectif final de faire sortir les étrangers du territoire. Ce brouillage amène à s'intéresser aux ressorts matériels et symboliques de la domination qui s'exerce sur les « retournés » par le biais de cette assistance, où s'observe un retournement du rapport des expulsables à leur départ, rebaptisé « volontaire ». En tenant bout à bout l'étude des processus de renvoi et des expériences d'après-retour, il s'agit de mettre en perspective les mythologies et les réalités du phénomène. Pour ce faire, on examine, à travers les mécanismes de relégation, l'ensemble des acteurs et des institutions participant à l'aménagement d'un espace transnational de prise en charge sociale reliant les pays de renvoi aux pays d'où venaient les émigrés, particulièrement dans les effets sociopolitiques et anthropologiques que leurs opérations produisent. / Starting from the issue of assisted voluntary return in France, this research offers an interpretation of removal policies for undocumented foreigners, labeled as "return policy" in the European Union. The principle of deportation has now been transposed to the field of social policy. Therefore, various humanitarian assistance programmes have hidden the notion of obligation which underlies the final goal of having foreigners leave the country. This confusion leads to the study of material and symbolic patterns of domination applied to "returnees”. In fact, this assistance involves a twist in the relation to the departure: undocumented migrants are no longer deportable people but foreigners asking for voluntary departure. Considering the whole process of removal and post deportation experiences, this research is to outline the myths and realities of return. Thus, trough relegation mechanisms, both social actors and institutions have been investigated. Their involvement and its consequences in the set up of a transnational space bonding the "deporting countries" and the countries of origin have been thoroughly analysed from a sociopolitical and an anthropological point of view.

Disarmament, Demobilisation and Reintegration (DDR) have become a key component of the postconflict peacebuilding orthodoxy. Therefore, this study evaluates the efficacy of Amnesty, Disarmament, Demobilisation and Reintegration (ADDR) in conflict prevention and resolution using the 2009 Niger Delta ADDR programme as a case study. The study evaluated the effectiveness of the programme using the minimalist and maximalist framework advanced in the DDR literature. The key findings and conclusions of the Study were that a minimalist DDR would only achieve security stabilisation and return excombatants to the status quo- ante society with all the pre-conflict grievances unaddressed thereby bequeathing a high potential of relapse to violence. Furthermore, for DDR to be an effective conflict prevention and resolution mechanism and postconflict peacebuilding force, its conceptualisation, design and implementation must be maximalist in nature with a transformative agenda that aims to address the roots causes of violence.

[pt] Algumas crianças, cujos direitos foram violados, são encaminhadas à modalidade protetiva intitulada família acolhedora, também conhecida como acolhimento familiar. Esta é uma alternativa provisória, na qual uma família já constituída recebe, em sua residência, crianças que precisam de cuidados. O núcleo familiar acolhedor comprometesse a valorizar e respeitar as particularidades individuais e culturais de cada uma. As famílias acolhedoras devem contribuir para a restituição de afetos e efetivação dos direitos fundamentais, conforme preconiza o Estatuto da Criança e do Adolescente e a Lei de Proteção de Crianças e Jovens. Os objetivos mais importantes do acolhimento em famílias são proteger, garantir a convivência familiar e comunitária, e prezar pela rápida reintegração familiar, quando possível e seguro. Hoje, no Brasil, o acolhimento familiar está inserido em uma política pública nacional, como ação a ser implementada nos serviços de Proteção Social Especial de Alta Complexidade. Os serviços de famílias acolhedoras têm grande relevância, principalmente neste cenário, pois sugerem a não institucionalização, conferindo caráter de cuidados mais direcionados. Em Portugal, esta medida também está contemplada em legislação, contudo, assim como no Brasil, vem sendo desenvolvida de forma residual. Este trabalho é uma reunião de artigos científicos cujo objetivo principal é pensar os desafios e possibilidades da reintegração familiar de crianças acolhidas nesta modalidade. Por meio da metodologia survey monkey e da análise de conteúdo os dados foram coletados e analisados em três etapas. Os resultados da pesquisa apontam para a necessidade de ampliação do acolhimento, melhor compreensão do fenômeno da reintegração, e reflexão sobre o tempo de retorno valorizando a singularidade de cada caso. Assim, o aprimoramento dos estudos e o investimento no acolhimento familiar precisa ser priorizado tanto em Portugal quanto no Brasil em detrimento das práticas de institucionalização. / [en] Some children, whose rights have been violated, are referred to the protective modality called the foster family, also known as the foster care. This is a temporary alternative, in which an already constituted family receives, in their residence, children in need of care. The warm family nucleus commits itself to valuing and respecting the individual and cultural particularities of each one. The foster families must contribute to the restoration of affections and fulfillment of fundamental rights, as recommended in the Statute of the Child and Adolescent and the Law on the Protection of Children and Young People. The most important objectives of foster care in families are to protect, ensure family and community coexistence, and to ensure that family reintegration is possible, when possible and safe. Today, in Brazil, the foster care is inserted in a national public policy, as an action to be implemented in the services of Special Social Protection of High Complexity. The services of foster family have great relevance, mainly in this scenario, since they suggest the non-institutionalization, giving character of more directed care. In Portugal, this measure is also contemplated in legislation, however, as in Brazil, it has been developed on a residual basis. This paper is a meeting of scientific articles whose main objective is to think about the challenges and possibilities of family reintegration of children accepted in this modality. Through the survey monkey methodology and the content analysis the data were collected and analyzed in three stages. The results of the research point to the need to increase the reception, better understanding of the phenomenon of reintegration, and reflection on the time of return valuing the singularity of each case. Thus, the improvement of studies and investment in family care must be prioritized both in Portugal and in Brazil, to the detriment of institutionalization practices.

The studie aims to increase the understanding of ex-offenders need of support while establishing themselves in the labour market and to examine what knowledge of counselling can provide in order to develop Krami. Krami is a co-operation between Kriminalvården, Arbetsförmedlingen and in many cases even local authorities in Sweden. The aim of Krami is to help ex-offenders enter the labour market. Interviews with the staff and studies of policy documents give an idea of the contents of the initial counselling- course and show what the staff consider the challenges and needs for the participants. The study shows that the counselling course focuses on strengthening both self knowledge as well as knowledge about the labour market. The course also provides opportunities to develop the ability of making choices and to handle the consequences of the choices made. All those activities are central elements of counselling theories. Knowledge of counselling can contribute wtih methods and models of mapping and widening perspectives which many counsellor use in their daily work. / Syftet med studien är att öka förståelsen för tidigare dömdas behov av stöd vid etablering på arbetsmarknaden och belysa vad studie- och yrkesvägledning kan tillföra för att utveckla Krami. Krami är ett samarbete mellan Kriminalvården, Arbetsförmedlingen och i många fall även kommuner och har som uppdrag att hjälpa tidigare dömda in på arbetsmarknaden. Genom intervjuer med personal och studier av styrdokument ges en bild av vad vägledningskursen innehåller och hur personalen tänker kring målgruppens utmaningar och behov. Resultatet visar att man inom vägledningskursen arbetar med att stärka såväl deltagarnas självkännedom som kunskaper om arbetslivet. Det läggs även stor vikt vid att öva på att göra övertänkta val och att hantera konsekvenserna av dessa val. Detta är centrala inslag i många vägledningsteorier. Kunskaper om studie- och yrkesvägledning kan bidra till att utveckla vägledningskursen ytterligare genom de metoder och modeller för kartläggning och vidgning av perspektiv som många studie- och yrkesvägledare använder i sitt arbete.