Helping the Less Fortunate: A Predictive Model of Collective Action

A model of factors that lead members of an advantaged group to perform collective action intended to help a disadvantaged out-group is tested. A distinction is made between easy and demanding collective activities. Two different routes are expected to lead to collective action. First, an indirect link is proposed between a common in-group identity and collective action. This link is believed to be mediated by perceived mobilization resources. Second, the link between relative deprivation on behalf of others (RDBO) and collective action will vary according to the type of behavior considered. While, RDBO is expected to be directly associated with easy collective behavior, the link between RDBO and demanding collective activities is mediated through perceived mobilization resources. In turn, perceived resources are linked to both forms of collective behaviors. The predicted model is tested among 273 undergraduate respondents. Findings point to the relevance of all factors considered and the pivotal role of perceived mobilization resources on collective action.     

The impact of salient self-identities on relative deprivation and action intentions

Salient self-identities and their impact upon feelings of relative deprivation (RD) and subsequent action intentions were examined. Eight experimental conditions (Personal/Group Salience × Large/Small Intragroup Inequalities × Large/Small Intergroup Inequalities) were created utilizing a role-play design. Significant main effects for both salience and social inequalities were found to influence both RD and action intentions. In accordance with self-categorization theory, when group compared to personal identities were made salient, stronger feelings of group RD and greater likelihood of collective action intentions were reported. Alternatively, when personal compared to group identities were made salient, greater likelihood of individual actions were reported. In accordance with relative deprivation theory, when intergroup inequalities were large compared to small, stronger feelings of group RD and less likelihood of collective action were reported. Alternatively, when intragroup inequalities were large compared to small, stronger feelings of personal RD were reported.     

相对剥夺感:想得、应得、怨愤于未得

相对剥夺感是指与某一标准相比较,个体觉得自己或自己所在群体状况更加糟糕,并产生生气或怨恨的情感反应。相对剥夺感包括个人相对剥夺感和群体相对剥夺感。研究表明,家庭收入、主观社会阶层、内群体认同,以及社会变化的速度和方向等对个人或群体相对剥夺感产生显著影响。相对剥夺感对个体的身心健康和行为,以及群体的态度与行为均具有显著的影响。但是,有关相对剥夺感与公正理论的异同、相对剥夺感的测量、参照对象与比较方式,以及相对剥夺感影响心理与行为的机制等方面还有待深入探讨。     

跨情境下集群行为的动因机制

群体性事件是当下我国典型的集群行为。本研究通过实验室情景设计的方法, 考察了跨情境下群体相对剥夺如何通过群体认同作用于集群行为, 及群体愤怒和群体效能对集群行为的影响。结果表明：1) 同一触发情境下, 群体认同调节群体相对剥夺－集群行为(意向)之间的关系。一般群体认同凸显的个体在高群体相对剥夺水平下有更强烈的集群行为参与(意向)。这源自群体认同对群体相对剥夺不同水平下群体效能与集群行为意向之间的二次调节。对于特定群体认同凸显的个体, 无论群体相对剥夺水平的高低, 都有较高的集群行为参与(意向)。这当中, 群体愤怒起到了部分中介的作用。2) 不同触发情境下, 群体认同对群体相对剥夺与集群行为意向的调节作用出现差异。该调节作用仅出现在利益无关情境中。此外, 群体愤怒与群体效能对集群行为意向的影响在不同情境下有区别：在利益无关情境中, 群体愤怒的影响显著大于群体效能; 在利益相关情境中, 群体效能与群体愤怒的影响无显著差异。本研究扩展了集群行为的双路径模型, 并为政府预防和化解群体性事件提供思路。     

Increasing wealth inequality may increase interpersonal hostility: The relationship between personal relative deprivation and aggression

In most Western societies, wealth inequality is increasing, which in turn could increase people’s belief that one’s standing is relatively disadvantaged. Based on relative deprivation theory, we argue that such an experience of personal relative deprivation should causally lead to greater interpersonal hostility. Indeed, three experiments show that participants in a personal relative deprivation condition reported higher levels of aggressive affect and behaved more aggressively than participants in a personal relative gratification condition. Compared to a control condition, participants experiencing personal relative deprivation were more aggressive rather than participants experiencing personal relative gratification being less aggressive. However, personal relative deprivation increased aggressive behavior only toward targets that were the source for participants’ experience of disadvantage, but it did not increase aggression toward neutral targets.     

The application of relative deprivation theory to justice perception of preferential selection

This study attempted to apply the relative deprivation theory to preferential selection research. Two questions were addressed in this context: First, does preferential selection cause feelings of injustice or deprivation? and, second, can the magnitude of such feelings of injustice be predicted? A questionnaire was designed to assess fairness perceptions of all types of selection outcomes: preferential selection; together with selection involving discrimination against minorities and selections without either forms of discrimination. Results showed that preferential selection caused feelings of injustice. The level of felt injustice associated with preferential selection was identical to that due to discrimination against minorities. Further, the magnitude of felt injustice due to preferential selection could be predicted by the size of the discrepancy in “performance-relevant merits” between the selected minority candidate and the unsuccessful majority candidate. The study also compared effects of the “self-other” comparison process, used in previous relative deprivation research, and a “other-other” comparison process on justice perception. Implications of the results for the application of relative deprivation theory to preferential selection research were discussed.     

Bad times are not good times for revolutions: Collective deprivation and the mobilization level of French radical movements (1882–1980)

Contrary to a popular belief, research has generally found no relationship between collective economic deprivation and the rise of radical political movements. On the other hand, various studies show that collective economic deprivation generates societal surges of conservatism. I therefore hypothesize that the absence of a relationship between collective deprivation and radical movements covers up opposite effects of collective deprivation depending on the ideology of radical movements: Reactionary (i.e., conservative radical) movements should mobilize more in times of collective deprivation, whereas revolutionary (i.e., progressive radical) movements should mobilize more in times of collective improvement. This paper tests this hypothesis via a new database measuring the level of mobilization of French radical organizations from 1882 to 1980. Statistical analyses confirm that collective deprivation, operationalized by long‐term economic recession and long‐term growth of inequality, increases the mobilization of reactionary movements and decreases the mobilization of revolutionary movements. These results contradict the view that economic conditions have no role in triggering radical movements and support recent development of system justification theory implying that ideology matters in the explanation of collective action.     

The effect of intergroup contact on solidarity‐based collective action is mediated by reductions in SDO

This paper explores the impact of positive and negative intergroup contact on advantaged group members’ willingness to engage in collective action on behalf of disadvantaged outgroups, and the mediational role of social dominance orientation (SDO) in this process. SDO captures an individual’s ideological support for inequality. If contact is going to promote collective action to reduce inequality among the advantaged group, it must be expected to influence their ideological beliefs about hierarchy. In Study 1, only positive, and not negative contact was found to be associated with Whites’ support for the Black Lives Matter movement, mediated by reductions in SDO. In Study 2, both positive and negative contact were associated, respectively, with more or less support for collective action to protect the rights of European immigrants during Brexit negotiations. While positive contact was associated with reduced SDO and more support for collective action among British nationals, negative contact was associated with increased SDO and lower support for collective action.     

Ideologies of Diversity and Inequality: Predicting Collective Action in Groups Varying in Ethnicity and Immigrant Status

Ideological positions regarding social diversity and status inequality are examined as predictors of people's willingness to engage in collective action. Using social dominance theory and social identity theory, we hypothesized that the relationships between ideology, ethnic identification, and orientation toward collective action will vary depending on the position of one's group. Comparisons were made between four U.S. groups: White natives, White immigrants, Black/Latino natives, and Black/Latino immigrants. Groups differed in their endorsement of social diversity and social inequality, as well as in their orientation toward collective action and their ethnic group identification. For all groups, ethnic identity mediated the link between ideology and collective action, but the valence and magnitude of paths differed as a function of ethnicity and immigrant status. Social diversity was more critical for U.S. immigrants (White and Black/Latino); social inequality accounted for more variance in native-born U.S. groups (although in opposite directions for the two groups).     

相对剥夺感影响网络集群攻击行为：一个有调节的双路径模型

以598名大学生为被试,采用问卷法考察群体相对剥夺与网络集群攻击行为的关系,检验以群体愤怒和群体效能为中介变量的双路径模型及群体认同在双路径模型中所发挥的调节作用。结果发现：（1）群体相对剥夺显著正向预测网络集群攻击行为;（2）群体愤怒和群体效能在群体相对剥夺与网络集群攻击行为之间有中介作用;（3）群体认同在群体相对剥夺通过群体愤怒和群体效能影响网络集群攻击行为的双路径模型中起调节作用。     

Collective guilt,moral outrage,and support for helping the poor: A matter of system versus in‐group responsibility framing

We examined how the framing of responsibility for reducing socio‐economic inequality affects individuals' emotional reactions towards the poor and the willingness to engage in prosocial actions. Attribution of responsibility to either the system (government and institutions), the less deprived in‐group, or the disadvantaged out‐group (poor) was measured (Study 1) and manipulated (Study 2). Consistent with our hypotheses, moral outrage was higher than collective guilt when system responsibility for inequalities was put forth, but collective guilt arose to reach the level of moral outrage when in‐group responsibility was emphasized. Moreover, distinguishing between collective guilt for action and for inaction, we found guilt for inaction more difficult and thus less likely to arise, unless responsibility was put on the in‐group. Collective emotions were also found to be negatively linked to system justification motivation illustrating the palliative function of legitimization processes. Finally, moral outrage predicted the willingness to act upon socio‐economic inequalities both when the system's and in‐group's responsibility was emphasized, whereas collective guilt for action (but not for inaction) predicted support for prosocial actions only when the in‐group's responsibility was engaged. These findings suggest that the specific group‐based emotions in response to poverty depend on whether the system or the in‐group is held responsible and differentially predict individuals' commitment to act.     

想象积极群际接触对利他型集体行动意愿的影响:系统公正感和群际评价的中介作用

集体行动是维护和实现社会公平正义的有效途径之一。以往研究主要聚焦于弱势群体利己型集体行动,很少有研究考察利他型集体行动的影响因素。本研究采用双随机设计,通过三个实验探讨积极群际接触与利他型集体行动的中介效应因果模型。实验1采用想象性群际接触范式操纵积极群际接触,发现积极群际接触促进利他型集体行动,系统公正感和群际评价中的热情维度起中介作用。实验2与实验3分别操纵系统公正感和热情,检验中介变量与因变量间的因果关系,证实了积极群际接触-系统公正感、热情-利他型集体行动的因果关系链。     

How the disadvantaged appraise group-based exclusion: The path from legitimacy to illegitimacy

Although many forms of differential treatment based on group membership are perceived to be legitimate, disadvantaged group members’ responses to discrimination have been studied primarily in contexts in which such treatment is appraised as illegitimate. This has resulted in an impoverished understanding of differential group-based treatment and a failure to illuminate the processes by which discrimination can shift from being seen as legitimate to being viewed as illegitimate. We discuss the determinants of disadvantaged group members’ legitimacy appraisals and the de-legitimisation process, whereby forms of discrimination appraised as legitimate come to be increasingly perceived as illegitimate. Whether group-based exclusion is addressed collectively or individually depends on socio-structural factors such as the pervasiveness of discrimination, impermeability of intergroup boundaries, and the availability of cognitive alternatives to the status quo. We conclude that understanding the antecedents and consequences of legitimacy appraisals is necessary to develop a comprehensive account of disadvantaged group members’ experiences of group-based discrimination.     

The Effect of Discussion upon the Correctness of Group Decisions,when the Factor of Majority Influence is Allowed For

Abstract

Examined were a number of predictions from major intergroup theories concerning factors associated with individual and collective mobility strategies among minority group members. Respondents were first-generation “visible” minority immigrants to Canada. Interviews were conducted by interviewers from the same ethnic group as that of the respondents and in the respondents' preferred languages. Contrary to the five-stage model of Taylor and McKirnan (1984), but in accord with a minority group perspective on intergroup relations, individual action was preferred by less talented minority group members. In support of social identity theory (Tajfel &; Turner, 1986), individual action was associated with higher belief in the legitimacy of the social system, and, as predicted by relative deprivation theory (Runciman, 1966), collective action was associated with perceived group but not personal discrimination. Support was also found for resource mobilization theory (McCarthy &; Zald, 1979), in that resource availability was associated with collective action.     

Relative Deprivation and Social Identity in Times of Dramatic Social Change: The Case of Nurses1

In the present study, an integration of relative deprivation theory and social identity theory is proposed to account for people's reactions to dramatic changes affecting their daily lives. Data collected among nurses (n = 108) indicate that feelings of relative deprivation are influenced by different perceptions of organizational change. Path analysis shows that feelings of social relative deprivation derive from negative changes that are numerous, and that temporal relative deprivation is experienced as a result of negative changes that are rapid. In terms of the link between social identity and relative deprivation, 2 contrasting approaches were tested. Analyses support the view that in‐group identification acts as a precursor, rather than as a consequence, of relative deprivation.     

Put your money where your mouth is! Explaining collective action tendencies through group-based anger and group efficacy

Insights from appraisal theories of emotion are used to integrate elements of theories on collective action. Three experiments with disadvantaged groups systematically manipulated procedural fairness (Study 1), emotional social support (Study 2), and instrumental social support (Study 3) to examine their effects on collective action tendencies through group-based anger and group efficacy. Results of structural equation modeling showed that procedural fairness and emotional social support affected the group-based anger pathway (reflecting emotion-focused coping), whereas instrumental social support affected the group efficacy pathway (reflecting problem-focused coping), constituting 2 distinct pathways to collective action tendencies. Analyses of the means suggest that collective action tendencies become stronger the more fellow group members "put their money where their mouth is." The authors discuss how their dual pathway model integrates and extends elements of current approaches to collective action.     

A Social Categorization Explanation for Framing Effects in Nested Social Dilemmas

This study developed and tested the idea that social categorization processes help to explain framing effects in social dilemmas. Using self-categorization theory, we predicted that members of a collective would cooperate more when they faced homogeneous rather than heterogeneous resource frames. We manipulated the starting point of resources for the members of each of two subgroups making up a larger collective in a nested social dilemma. The resources of the subject's own subgroup started at the individual, subgroup, or collective level, and the resources of the opposing subgroup also started at the individual, subgroup, or collective level. The condition in which both subgroups' resources began at the collective level was similar to a traditional commons dilemma, while the condition in which both subgroups' resources began at the individual level was similar to a traditional public goods problem. The other conditions were new to this research domain. We found higher allocations to the collective account when the initial resource location was the same for both subgroups (versus different for each subgroup), even when this initial location was the subgroup or individual level. Whereas previous explanations for framing effects cannot account for these results, social categorization processes provide a parsimonious explanation for the observed pattern of allocations.     

"A right to lead": The role of leader legitimacy on group reactions to transgressive leadership

Research on the transgression credit shows that groups may sometimes turn a blind eye to ingroup leaders who transgress moral norms. Although there is substantial research investigating the underlying criteria of what makes a “good” leader, research often neglects to investigate the role of followers in leader-group dynamics. In this paper, we offer a novel approach to transgressive leadership by proposing that leader legitimacy is a key factor that determines whether followers’ reactions to transgressive leaders are positive or negative. Across two experiments, participants ascribed transgression credit only to transgressive ingroup leaders perceived as legitimate (Studies 1–2, total n = 308). Transgressive illegitimate leaders were viewed as more threatening to the group, were targeted for formal punishment, received less validation for their behavior, triggered negative emotions (anger and shame), and raised higher consensus for their removal from the leadership position than did legitimate leaders. This effect also occurred irrespective of the absence of formal social control measures implemented toward the transgressive leader (Study 2). Mediation analysis showed that leader illegitimacy triggered stronger feelings of group threat and stronger negative emotions which, consequently, fuelled agreement with collective protest against the transgressive leader. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.     

The Effects of Information About AIDS Risk and Self-Efficacy on Women's Intentions to Engage in AIDS Preventive Behavior1

Female college students' perceived vulnerability to AIDS and their perceived self-efficacy regarding AIDS preventive behavior (APB), were manipulated in a 2 × 2 design. Consistent with protection motivation theory (e. g., Rogers. 1983), the results showed that intention to engage in APB was highest among subjects who received information that their risk of getting infected with HIV was high, and who experienced relatively high feelings of self-efficacy. These subjects also seemed least likely to engage in denial of their AIDS risk. The implications of these findings for AIDS education programs are discussed.     

Excluded emotions: The role of anger in antisocial responses to ostracism

In this article, we examined the role of anger in the link between social exclusion and antisocial behavior. We compared the effects of anger to another negative emotion, sadness. In Study 1, social exclusion was associated with feelings of anger, and anger was associated with antisocial behavior. In contrast, sadness was not associated with antisocial behavior. In Study 2, feelings of anger were manipulated by excluding participants for either a fair or unfair reason. Unfairly excluded participants were more angry and were more likely to engage in antisocial behavior than fairly excluded participants. Implications for the study of emotions in the context of social exclusion are discussed.