Why the psychology of collective action requires qualitative transformation as well as quantitative change

This is a postprint of an article published in Contemporary Social Science, 2014, Vol. 9, Issue 1, pp. 121 - 134 © 2014 copyright Taylor & Francis. Contemporary Social Science is available online at: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsoc21#.VO2Nh51FDcsThe argument of this paper is that social psychological models of collective action do not (and cannot) adequately explain social change and collective action through models based on shared variance between variables. Over and above the questions of why and how collective action and social change occur, such models do not adequately address the question of when they occur: at what point on a measure of perceived illegitimacy – or any other predictor – does a person decide that enough is enough, and at what point do shared grievances transform into mass protest? Instead, it is argued that the transition from inaction to action at the level of both the individual and the group is better conceptualised as a qualitative transformation. A key agenda for the social psychology of collective action should therefore be to conceptualise the link between quantitative variation in predictors of action and the actual emergence of action

Contesting the Meaning of Intergroup Disadvantage: Towards a Psychology of Resistance

This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Wiley via the DOI in this record A prevailing view in psychology is that intergroup disadvantage poses a serious threat to psychological well-being. Lower self-esteem and out-group favoritism are two of the most examined forms of psychological damage thought to follow from intergroup disadvantage. We review theory and research on lower self-esteem and out-group favoritism with close attention to the nature of the evidence suggesting that intergroup disadvantage is detrimental psychologically. We argue that this evidence is not as strong or unambiguous as is widely believed. This has likely led to an underestimation of psychological resistance to disadvantage-that middle ground between the extremes of surviving at subsistence levels of psychological well-being and confronting disadvantage. We propose that greater attention to the psychological meaning that the disadvantaged give their position enables a more accurate assessment of the diverse forms of psychological resistance to intergroup disadvantage

Explaining reactions to normative information about alcohol consumption: A test of an extended social identity model

This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Elsevier via the DOI in this recordBackground: To test the role of group identification and the perceived importance of alcohol consumption to a group identity in shaping reactions to normative information about alcohol consumption. Methods: The study had a 2 (behaviour: identity-defining/alcohol vs. non-identity defining/caffeine). ×. 2 (norm: low vs. heavy consumption) between-subjects factorial design. Group identification and personal attitudes towards alcohol/caffeine consumption were included as measured predictors. Participants were 83 undergraduate students (44 female, 38 male, one unspecified) at a University in Scotland. Predictor and outcome variables included questionnaire measures of group (student) identification, personal attitudes to alcohol/caffeine consumption, the perceived importance of alcohol/caffeine consumption to group identity, and behavioral intentions to consume alcohol/caffeine. Results: Personal attitude and group identification moderated the impact of norm information on consumption intentions, but only for alcohol consumption, and not caffeine consumption. For alcohol, norm information did affect intended consumption (ps. ≤.034), with the crucial exception of high identifiers who had favourable personal attitudes towards alcohol consumption. Instead, these individuals resist norm information (ps = .458 and.174), showing no decrease in intentions in the face of norm information that emphasised relatively 'low' levels of consumption. Conclusions: The impact of norm information on alcohol consumption intentions depends on group-based factors such as group identification and the perceived importance of alcohol to a group identity. When both of these factors are high, and an individual also personally favours the behaviour, the potential for norm-based interventions to fail is increased

Felt understanding in intergroup relations

This is the final version. Available on open access from Elsevier via the DOI in this recordData availability: No data was used for the research described in the article.In this paper I review recent research on the importance of intergroup felt understanding – the belief that outgroup members understand and accept the perspectives of ingroup members – in intergroup relations. I first discuss felt understanding in conceptual terms in the broader context of research on intergroup meta-perception, before reviewing recent findings on how feeling understood in intergroup terms predicts more positive intergroup outcomes such as trust. In the second part I consider future possibilities for this work, including (1) how felt understanding relates to other concepts such as ‘voice’ and feeling empathised with; (2) how felt understanding might be fostered through interventions; and (3) connections between felt understanding – and the more general concept of responsiveness – and intergroup contact

“They just don't understand us”: The role of felt understanding in intergroup relations

This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from the American Psychological Association via the DOI in this recordWe report 5 studies examining the unique role of felt understanding in intergroup relations. In intergroup terms, felt understanding is the belief that members of an outgroup understand and accept the perspectives of ingroup members, including ingroup members’ beliefs, values, experiences, and self-definition/identity. In Studies 1 (Scotland–U.K. relations; N = 5,033) and 2 (U.K.–EU relations; N = 861) felt understanding consistently and strongly predicted outcomes such as trust, action intentions, and political separatism, including participants’ actual “Brexit” referendum vote in Study 2. These effects were apparent even when controlling for outgroup stereotypes and metastereotypes. Felt understanding was a unique predictor of outgroup trust and forgiveness in Study 3 (Catholic–Protestant relations in Northern Ireland; N = 1,162), and was a powerful predictor of political separatism even when controlling for specific, relational appraisals including negative interdependence and identity threat in Study 4 (Basque–Spanish relations; N = 205). Study 5 (N = 190) included a direct manipulation of felt understanding, which had predicted effects on evaluation of the outgroup and of ingroup-outgroup relations. Overall, the findings provide converging evidence for the critical role of felt understanding in intergroup relations. We discuss future research possibilities, including the emotional correlates of felt understanding, and its role in intergroup interactions

“Fury, us”: Anger as a basis for new group self-categories

This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Taylor & Francis via the DOI in this recordWe tested the hypothesis that shared emotions, notably anger, influence the formation of new self-categories. We first measured participants' (N = 89) emotional reactions to a proposal to make university assessment tougher before providing feedback about the reactions of eight other co-present individuals. This feedback always contained information about the other individuals' attitudes to the proposals (four opposed and four not opposed) and in the experimental condition emotion information (of those opposed, two were angry, two were sad). Participants self-categorised more with, and preferred to work with, angry rather than sad targets, but only when participants' own anger was high. These findings support the idea that emotions are a potent determinant of self-categorisation, even in the absence of existing, available self-categories

"We have no quarrel with you": Effects of group status on characterizations of "conflict" with an outgroup

This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Wiley via the DOI in this record In three studies, we examined the effect of intergroup status on group members' tendencies to characterize the ingroup's relationship with an outgroup as conflictual following outgroup action. Findings from all three studies supported the prediction that the intergroup relationship would be characterized as less conflictual when the ingroup had relatively high rather than low status. Consistent with the hypothesis that the effect of status reflects strategic concerns, it was moderated by the perceived relevance of the outgroup's action to intergroup status relations (study 1), it was sensitive to audience (study 2), and it was partially mediated by status management concerns (study 3). The role of strategic, status-related factors in intergroup relations is discussed.Leverhulme TrustEconomic and Social Research Council (ESRC

How Group Members Appraise Collective History: Appraisal Dimensions of Collective History and Their Role in In-Group Engagement

This is the final version. Available on open access from PsychOpen via the DOI in this recordData Availability: For this article, a data set is freely available (Makanju, Livingstone, & Sweetman, 2022).Group members’ appraisals of their in-group’s collective history have been found to shape their engagement with the in-group and its collective goals. We add to this research by examining the complexity and dimensionality of how group members appraise collective history, and how different forms of appraisals relate to different forms of in-group engagement. We do so by (1) outlining four key dimensions – richness, clarity, valence and subjective importance – of how an in-group’s collective history can be appraised, and (2) examining how these appraisal dimensions relate to group members’ engagement with the in-group. Focussing on the African in-group category, we tested these ideas using a qualitative, essay writing approach. Analysis of responses (N = 33) indicated varied use of each of these dimensions of collective history appraisal, and that they relate to in-group engagement in differing ways. Two specific rhetorical strategies were identified: deploying the in-group’s history as a contrast; and deploying the in-group’s history as an inspiration. When collective history was appraised as rich, complex, negatively-valenced and unimportant, it was characterised as something from which the in-group should break away (history-as-contrast). Conversely, when collective history was appraised as rich, complex, positively-valenced and important, history was characterised as something to be used as a resource for the in-group (history-as-inspiration). Our findings build a fuller and more nuanced picture of how collective history shapes in-group engagement in a non-western setting

Testing the effect of historical representations on collective identity and action

This is the final version. Available from Public Library of Science via the DOI in this record. Data Availability: All data and research material files are available from the Open Science Framework database (https://osf.io/esnb4/?view_only=0be6351ee8b34ea8b9543afa101e5824).Historical representation of collective identity offer means of influencing the extent to which group members engage in activities in line with the collective interests of their group vs. their own individual interests. This research tested the effect of different historical representations of the African people on Africans’ perceptions of African social identity and engagement in identity management strategies across two studies. In Study 1 (N = 162), we tested the effect of two historical representations: positive (prestigious precolonial African history and resistance to the colonial power) and negative (inhumane practices of precolonial Africans). In Study 2 (N = 431), we tested the effect of two historical representations: positive (prestigious precolonial African history) and negative factual (inhuman practices of precolonial Africans) while also making salient the ubiquitous historical representation of the African people (negative colonial-perspective) across all history conditions. We predicted that positive (vs. negative) historical representation would lead to more positive perceptions of African identity, which in turn would predict more collectively-oriented identity management strategies. Altogether, results provided no support for these predictions. We highlight methodological (and by extension theoretical) features–such as, psychological reactance and outgroup audience effect–which may have limited the effect of the manipulations to help inform the interpretation of the null findings obtained. We conclude by discussing other limitations and the theoretical implications of our work, before pointing out various avenues for future research to help us better test, and understand, the role of historical representation in the African context

Conflict, what conflict?: Evidence that playing down ‘conflict’ can be a weapon of choice for high‐status groups

This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Wiley via the DOI in this recordThree studies using pre‐existing (Studies 1 and 3) and minimal (Study 2) groups tested the hypothesis that ingroup status shapes whether ‘conflict’ with an outgroup is strategically acknowledged or downplayed. As predicted, high (vs. low) ingroup status led group members to downplay conflict, but only to an outgroup rather than ingroup audience (Studies 1 & 2; Ns = 127 & 292), and only when the status difference was unstable (vs. stable) and the outgroup’s action was perceived as illegitimate (Study 2). High‐status group members also collectively communicated with the outgroup in a manner designed to defuse conflict (Study 2). Survey data of industrial (manager‐worker) relations further indicated that company managers (high‐status) characterized manager–worker relations as less conflictual than did workers (low‐status) in the same companies (Study 3; N = 24,661). Findings imply that high‐status groups play down conflict as a ‘benevolent’ (but unacknowledged) means of maintaining intergroup status hierarchies