Collective action against collective disadvantage is a theoretically and socially relevant phenomenon that has received increased scientific attention in recent years. Because recent work combines ...different theoretical traditions, the last decade can be rightly called an ‘age of integration’. In this article, I take stock and look ahead by briefly reviewing four core social‐psychological motivations for undertaking collective action (based on identity, morality, emotion, and efficacy). I then review recent accumulating evidence for an encompassing social‐psychological model of collective action that integrates all four core motivations. Based on this model's shortcomings, I close by calling for an ‘age of innovation’ for which I propose a theoretical and research agenda.
An integrative social identity model of collective action (SIMCA) is developed that incorporates 3 socio-psychological perspectives on collective action. Three meta-analyses synthesized a total of ...182 effects of perceived
injustice, efficacy
, and
identity
on collective action (corresponding to these socio-psychological perspectives). Results showed that, in isolation, all 3 predictors had medium-sized (and causal) effects. Moreover, results showed the importance of social identity in predicting collective action by supporting SIMCA's key predictions that (a) affective injustice and politicized identity produced stronger effects than those of non-affective injustice and non-politicized identity; (b) identity predicted collective action against both incidental and structural disadvantages, whereas injustice and efficacy predicted collective action against incidental disadvantages better than against structural disadvantages; (c) all 3 predictors had unique medium-sized effects on collective action when controlling for between-predictor covariance; and (d) identity bridged the injustice and efficacy explanations of collective action. Results also showed more support for SIMCA than for alternative models reflecting previous attempts at theoretical integration. The authors discuss key implications for theory, practice, future research, and further integration of social and psychological perspectives on collective action.
Psychology is as diverse as it is divided: For many research questions asked, different and competing theories will often exist to answer them. Despite the value of diversity, this lack of ...theoretical common ground has resulted in major empirical fragmentation in psychological research (e.g., a “confetti factory” of empirical trivia), but also to a lack of attention within the research process itself to theory selection (i.e., which theory to use and why?) and theoretical integration (i.e., how can one “connect the dots”?). This article aims to offer practical guidance to researchers in psychology about how to make informed decisions on theory selection and theoretical integration. To this end, I outline the ACES (Analyzing, Comparing, Evaluating, and Synthesizing) guide, which offers a process-oriented guide toward such informed decision-making. Through its four-step structure and each step’s engaging and critical lead questions, researchers actively engage in a dialog in which they systematically question and explore which theories to select (and why), and whether a synthesis of different theories is possible and appropriate. As such, the ACES guide offers a practical, theory-focused tool for researchers in psychology.
Which emotions explain why people engage in political action (e.g., voting, protesting)? To answer this question, theory and research in psychology and political science predominantly focused on ...distinct negative emotions such as anger. The current article conceptually explores the motivational potential of distinct positive emotions by developing an integrative perspective that specifies which positive emotions can be differentiated (i.e., their form), which function these emotions have, and which implications these have for explaining political action. To this end, I analyze, compare, evaluate, and synthesize three approaches to positive emotions (affective intelligence theory, appraisal theories of emotion, and broaden‐and‐build theory). This perspective generates new hypotheses for the field to test, including the role played by distinct positive emotions such as joy, inspiration, interest, hope, and pride in motivating political action. I discuss how this perspective may help restore a balance in research on emotions and political action by focusing on the motivational potential of distinct positive emotions.
Average levels of loneliness have been suggested to differ between collectivistic and individualistic countries. However, we know little about how individual-level collectivism (i.e., perceiving the ...self or one’s social environment as collectivistic) is related to loneliness. As individualism and collectivism imply different ideals about how individuals should be embedded in social relationships, they may imply distinct risks for loneliness. Specifically, less demanding ideals in individualism should imply the risk of lower actual social embeddedness; more demanding ideals in collectivism should imply the risk of higher perceived discrepancies from such ideals. Two cross-sectional survey studies in five European countries (Study 1: Austria, N = 239; Study 2: Italy, Portugal, Sweden, The Netherlands, total N = 860) revealed that higher collectivism was related to lower loneliness. Individualism indeed implied lower social embeddedness, but collectivism did not imply higher discrepancies from ideal embeddedness. We discuss implications for reducing loneliness in different cultural contexts.
This article examines whether and how moral convictions predict collective action to achieve social change. Because moral convictions – defined as strong and absolute stances on moral issues – ...tolerate no exceptions, any violation motivates individuals to actively change that situation. We propose that moral convictions have a special relationship with politicized identities and collective action because of the potentially strong normative fit between moral convictions and the action‐oriented content of politicized identities. This effectively integrates moral conviction with the Social Identity Model of Collective Action (Van Zomeren, Postmes, & Spears, 2008), which predicts that, on the basis of a relevant social identity, group‐based anger and efficacy predict collective action. Results from two studies indeed showed that moral convictions predicted collective action intentions (Study 1–2) and collective action (Study 2) through politicized identification, group‐based anger, and group efficacy. We discuss theoretical and practical implications of our integrative model.
In polarized societal debates, it is often assumed that perceiving polarization leads individuals to take sides (e.g., “pro‐life” or “pro‐choice”). However, perceiving polarization can also make ...individuals ambivalent because they feel “caught in the social crossfire” of the debate. We conducted a survey study (Ntotal = 863 women) on ambivalents’ perspectives of the U.S. abortion debate. Findings supported the hypothesis that ambivalents’ perceived polarization related positively to their felt ambivalence. This relationship can be explained by their feeling of being “caught in the social crossfire”: they feel torn while also understanding both sides of the debate. Moreover, felt ambivalence was positively related to tendencies toward avoidance of the debate but also toward conciliatory efforts (e.g., to create mutual understanding between the groups). We discuss the implications of these findings for the relationship between perceived polarization and felt ambivalence among ambivalents.
Within the context of polarized societal debates (e.g. abortion, racism, climate change), scholars often assume that individuals have clear‐cut positions, either in favour of or against the debated ...issue. However, recent work suggests that such debates can also be breeding grounds for felt ambivalence. Moving beyond previous work that mainly focused on ambivalence as internal cognitive conflict, we propose and test a social discrepancy hypothesis, which suggests that the discrepancies ambivalents perceive between and within their own opinion and the opinion of actors in their social network and society (e.g. friends, family, opinion‐based groups) positively explain their levels of felt ambivalence. In doing so, we quantitatively extend recent qualitative work by examining whether these social tensions are indeed felt within. To this end, we employed a multi‐survey research project (Ns = 184, 181, 187) in the context of different societal debates in the Netherlands. Supporting our hypothesis across different debates, results showed that ambivalents' perceived opinion differences in the social environment explained their felt ambivalence. This suggests that polarized societal debates offer social discrepancies that, for ambivalents at least, can facilitate an internalization of social tensions.
Social psychological research on societal debates about potential social change (e.g., abortion, racial segregation) often focuses on those who take clear positions in these debates. Yet, little is ...known about the often invisible yet potentially influential group that experiences ambivalence in societal debates. Extending and integrating ambivalence and social change research, we explore the relation between social forces in societal debates and the experiences of ambivalence about social change within these debates. Thematic analysis of extensive interviews with 15 Dutch students experiencing ambivalence in a heated Dutch societal debate revealed that different social forces (e.g., interpersonal relations, groups people belong to, societal systems) facilitate felt ambivalence about potential social change. Moreover, this ambivalence was often experienced as feeling caught in a social crossfire. Our work contributes to a richer psychological understanding of ambivalence about potential social change and reveals the complexity of decision‐making in the context of societal debates.
Collective action is one of the core mechanisms of social change, and thus of major importance to social scientists, practitioners, and policy‐makers. Our goal in editing this issue is to bring ...together recent advances on the social and psychological dynamics of collective action among members of disadvantaged as well as advantaged groups. This article introduces the contributions to this issue after a brief review of the major psychological perspectives on collective action (social identity, relative deprivation, and resource mobilization theories), and a discussion of the considerable diversity in collective action research in terms of contexts, populations, and measures. We hope that this issue contributes to a more multi‐faceted and integrative understanding of the social and psychological dynamics of collective action in terms of theory, research, policy, and practice.
PDF
