2 research outputs found
'The more we stand for-the more we fight for': compatibility and legitimacy in the effects of multiple social identities
This paper explores the expression of multiple social identities through coordinated
collective action. We propose that perceived compatibility between potentially
contrasting identities and perceived legitimacy of protest serve as catalysts for collective
action. The present paper maps the context of the “Euromaidan” anti-regime protests
in Ukraine and reports data (N = 996) collected through an online survey following
legislation to ban protests (March–May, 2014). We measured participants’ identification
with three different groups (the Ukrainian nation, the online protest community, and the
street movement), perception of compatibility between online protest and the street
movement, perception of the legitimacy of protest, and intentions to take persuasive and
confrontational collective action. We found evidence that the more social groups people
“stood for,” the more they “fought” for their cause and that identifications predicted
both forms of collective action to the degree that people saw the protest and the
online movement as compatible with each other and believed protest to be legitimate.
Collective action can be interpreted as the congruent expression of multiple identities
that are rendered ideologically compatible both in online settings and on the street
Recommended from our members
“Let the strongest survive”: ageism and social Darwinism as barriers to supporting policies to benefit older individuals
The World Health Organization (WHO) identified +65 individuals as one of the most vulnerable populations in the current pandemic. Previous research has shown a robust association between ageism and derogatory attitudes and behaviors targeting older people. We proposed that reluctance of people under age 65 to endorse the policies that benefit older adults can be further explained by their adherence to social Darwinism. We tested a mediation model to examine whether social Darwinism would predict support for policies directly and indirectly through the endorsement of ageist attitudes. We conducted two correlational studies in Turkey (Study 1; N = 1261) and the United States (Study 2; N = 210). In Study 1, we collected data through social media and messaging platforms in April 2020. In Study 2, participants were recruited via Prolific Academic in May 2020. In both studies, we found that adherence to social Darwinist beliefs negatively predicted support for policies. We also found that this association was positively mediated by ageist attitudes. Overall, our research contributes to the scholarly effort to identify the social-psychological barriers to public support for legal initiatives aimed to secure a healthy and productive future for older people