Ideology is a double-edged sword : the role of ideology in helping and hindering the interactive development of support for social change

The research presented in this thesis explores the role of ideology in shaping group members' responses to social inequality with a particular focus on the interactive development of support for social change. This research employs a predominantly social identity based approach to explaining how advantaged members of society who nominally support social change become more willing to collectively act to achieve that change. In particular, I focus on how the opinion-based group interaction method can be harnessed to energise different aspects of supporters' identification with an opinion-based group formed around support for Reconciliation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians and how this can in turn influence their support for normatively aligned attitudes and behaviours. Utilising the opinion-based group interaction methodology enables me to manipulate the ideological content present during interaction to determine what impact this content may have on the interactive development of support for social change. Based on a theoretical review of the literature, I propose that this role may be two fold. On the one hand, where consensus around an ideology that favours social change is achieved then this will energise the normative alignment of a social change identity formed around support for action, positive attitudes and beliefs, which will consequently result in more sustainable support for social change. On the other hand, where consensus fails to materialise or forms around ideologies which discourage social change, then this normative alignment will be compromised, and will undermine support for social change. The first two studies investigate the impact of imposed ideological understandings of the intergroup context upon the effectiveness of the opinion-based group interaction method in promoting more active support for social change. Thus, in Study 1, I manipulated the perceived stability of Indigenous disadvantage in order to determine the effect of changing perceptions of the stability of the intergroup context upon aspects of identification as an opinion-based group member and support for collective action following interaction. The results showed that in the absence of any imposed meaning group members showed a stronger sense of connection to their group and willingness to engage in action following interaction when compared to a non-interacting baseline control. However, when Indigenous disadvantage was framed as unstable for interacting groups this enhanced ingroup ties as expected but undermined action intentions whilst framing this disadvantage as stable had little to no effect. These results appeared to be related to perceptions of consensus among the discussion groups. The role of consensus in this process was therefore followed up in Study 2 where the framing imposed on discussion groups was related to a government apology as a necessary first step on the path to achieving Reconciliation. While this manipulation did not evoke collective guilt among group members it did result in reduced support for action and less perceived consensus, and produced a stronger sense of connection to the group following interaction. Unlike in Study 1, however, when the interaction was not framed then discussion had no impact on the different aspects of identification or on action intentions rather than the expected increase despite higher levels of perceived consensus. In order to determine whether the imposition of ideological content was undermining the ability of discussion groups in the framed conditions to achieve consensus, Study 3 was designed to allow group members to select their own framing. Thus, in this study, interactions were framed with content that group members had endorsed prior to participating regarding which approach to Reconciliation was best, either a social justice or a social cohesion approach. This study demonstrated the enervating effects of consensus around an ideology which minimises the role of social change in reducing intergroup inequality. More specifically, group members who interacted with a social cohesion frame saw their identity as supporters as less central and had lower levels of support for collective action following interaction, although, interaction did lead to an increased sense of connection to the group. In contrast, consensus around a social justice ideology, which favours social change as a means of redressing intergroup inequality, did provide some support for the energising role of ideological consensus. However these results must be viewed with some caution due to a very small sample size. The data from these interaction-based studies was then aggregated to enable a stronger test of the potentially negative impact of ideology on the normative alignment of identity relevant attitudes and behaviours. The results show that for highly contentious issues even interaction with like minded others has the potential to undermine the alignment of a social change identity and that this enervation can be further exacerbated by ideological dissensus or consensus around an ideology which opposes social change. A fourth study was conducted in order to follow up on the associations between particular ideological content, specifically right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation, as predictors of support for social change as well as how the different aspects of identification as a supporter of Reconciliation may relate to the endorsement of identity relevant attitudes and behavioural intentions. This study revealed that ingroup affect and centrality, the two aspects of identification that remained largely unaffected by interaction, provided the strongest predictors of identity relevant attitudes and action intentions. However, both social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism improved the prediction of these variables, suggesting that even among supporters of social change, endorsement of these ideological beliefs may help to fine-tune predictions of just who will and who will not engage in collective action to bring about social change. In conclusion, this thesis provides support for the double-edged role of ideology in the interactive development of support for social change. This suggests that for social movements on contentious issues,bringing supporters together in order to build support for and commitment to action is not automatically beneficial for forming sustainable social change identities. Discussion may be important, but discussion without the resolution of ideological differences is not a panacea for a lack of progress