Martijn van Zomeren

Toward an integrative Social Identity model of Collective Action: A quantitative research synthesis of three socio-psychological perspectives.

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 SIMCAs 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.

Protesters as “Passionate Economists” A Dynamic Dual Pathway Model of Approach Coping With Collective Disadvantage

To explain the psychology behind individuals’ motivation to participate in collective action against collective disadvantage (e.g., protest marches), the authors introduce a dynamic dual pathway model of approach coping that integrates many common explanations of collective action (i.e., group identity, unfairness, anger, social support, and efficacy). It conceptualizes collective action as the outcome of two distinct processes: emotion-focused and problem-focused approach coping. The former revolves around the experience of group-based anger (based in appraised external blame for unfair collective disadvantage). The latter revolves around beliefs in the group’s efficacy (based in appraised instrumental coping potential for social change). The model is the first to make explicit the dynamic nature of collective action by explaining how undertaking collective action leads to the reappraisal of collective disadvantage, thus inspiring future collective action. The authors review empirical support for the model, discuss its theoretical and practical implications, and identify directions for future research and application.

On conviction's collective consequences : Integrating moral conviction with the social identity model of collective action

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.

Can moral convictions motivate the advantaged to challenge social inequality?: Extending the social identity model of collective action

This article examines whether and how moral convictions, defined as strong and absolute stances on moralized issues, motivate advantaged group members to challenge social inequality. Specifically, we propose that violations of moral convictions against social inequality motivate collective action against it by increasing identification with the victims of social inequality. Such identification links the current work with the Social Identity Model of Collective Action (SIMCA; Van Zomeren, Postmes, & Spears, 2008, in press), which predicts that individuals’ motivation to challenge social inequality requires a relevant social identity in which group-based anger and group efficacy beliefs motivate collective action. For the advantaged, moral convictions are therefore powerful motivators of collective action against social inequality. Two studies, conducted in the Netherlands and Hong Kong, replicated empirical support for this line of thought. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of our findings for collective action among the advantaged.

The Process Model of Group-Based Emotion Integrating Intergroup Emotion and Emotion Regulation Perspectives

Scholars interested in emotion regulation have documented the different goals and strategies individuals have for regulating their emotions. However, little attention has been paid to the regulation of group-based emotions, which are based on individuals’ self-categorization as a group member and occur in response to situations perceived as relevant for that group. We propose a model for examining group-based emotion regulation that integrates intergroup emotions theory and the process model of emotion regulation. This synergy expands intergroup emotion theory by facilitating further investigation of different goals (i.e., hedonic or instrumental) and strategies (e.g., situation selection and modification strategies) used to regulate group-based emotions. It also expands emotion regulation research by emphasizing the role of self-categorization (e.g., as an individual or a group member) in the emotional process. Finally, we discuss the promise of this theoretical synergy and suggest several directions for future research on group-based emotion regulation.

Believing in "making a difference" to collective efforts : Participative efficacy beliefs as a unique predictor of collective action

When rational actors believe that their group can achieve its goals through collective action (i.e., when they have strong group efficacy beliefs), they should not participate in it because they expect little benefit from their own participation. Paradoxically, however, research shows that individuals are more likely to participate when their group efficacy beliefs are stronger. In contrast to approaches that explain this paradox by invoking different psychological mechanisms (e.g., group identity, group-based anger), we provide a novel efficacy-based explanation by introducing the notion of participative efficacy beliefs (i.e., beliefs that one’s own actions will “make a difference” to collective efforts aimed at achieving group goals). Three correlational studies supported the construct and predictive validity of participative efficacy beliefs across different samples and contexts. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of this notion for the psychology of collective action and social change.

Vessels with Gold or Guilt: Emotional Reactions to Family Involvement Associated with Glorious or Gloomy Aspects of the Colonial Past

In two studies we examined whether forging a psychological bond with a nation’s colonization past facilitates the experience of positive and negative group-based self-conscious emotions as a function of a positive or negative manipulation of this past. Because people need to belong, we hypothesized that stronger family involvement in a nation’s colonization past (i.e. involved ancestors) evokes stronger a positive self-conscious emotions after positive descriptions of the nation’s colonizing past, and stronger negative self-conscious emotions after negative descriptions. In Study 1, we found support for these hypotheses in a real-life setting in which Dutch people actually found out whether their ancestors were involved in the colonization of Indonesia or not. In Study 2, we manipulated family involvement and valence of the past. Results offered support for the tested hypotheses. Implications of the results are discussed in relation to theories on identity and emotion.

Politicization During the 2012 U.S. Presidential Elections Bridging the Personal and the Political Through an Identity Content Approach

We investigated U.S. citizens’ politicization (i.e., switching from not self-defining to self-defining as an active political party supporter) during the 2012 U.S. Presidential Elections. We used a novel identity content approach to explore qualitative changes in overlap between personal and politicized identity traits. We collected longitudinal data from a community sample of U.S. citizens (N = 760), tracking whether and how personal and politicized identity content developed: two months before (T1), immediately before (T2), and 2 months after (T3) the election. We explored a subsample of participants who met inclusion criteria (n = 115), comparing 87 participants who did not politicize with 28 participants who self-labeled as unpoliticized at T1, but politicized at T2/T3. Results confirmed hypotheses: Only politicizers showed greater integration between their personal and politicized identity content over time; moreover, identity content was a significant positive predictor of politicization and action engagement. We discuss the value of identity content for politicization research.

Beliefs About the Malleability of Immoral Groups Facilitate Collective Action

Although negative out-group beliefs typically foster individuals’ motivation for collective action, we propose that such beliefs may diminish this motivation when people believe that this out-group cannot change in its very essence. Specifically, we tested the idea that believing in the malleability of immoral out-groups (i.e., targets of collective action) should increase collective action tendencies through group efficacy beliefs. Study 1 revealed that the more strongly participants believed that immoral out-groups could change as a function of contextual influences, the stronger their collective action tendencies were due to increased group efficacy. In Study 2, we experimentally replicated these findings using a manipulation of individuals’ beliefs about immoral out-groups being potentially malleable (vs. fixed). We discuss implications of our findings with an eye on the literature on collective action and implicit beliefs and on the promotion of civic engagement more broadly.

The Communication of “Pure” Group-Based Anger Reduces Tendencies Toward Intergroup Conflict Because It Increases Out-Group Empathy

The communication of group-based anger in intergroup conflict is often associated with destructive conflict behavior. However, we show that communicating group-based anger toward the out-group can evoke empathy and thus reduce intergroup conflict. This is because it stresses the value of maintaining a positive long-term intergroup relationship, thereby increasing understanding for the situation (in contrast to the communication of the closely related emotion of contempt). Three experiments demonstrate that the communication of group-based anger indeed reduces destructive conflict intentions compared with (a) a control condition (Experiments 1-2), (b) the communication of group-based contempt (Experiment 2), and (c) the communication of a combination of group-based anger and contempt (Experiments 2-3). Moreover, results from all three experiments reveal that empathy mediated the positive effect of communicating “pure” group-based anger. We discuss the implications of these findings for the theory and practice of communicating emotions in intergroup conflicts.