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 SIMCA's 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

Winter Temporary Pastures.

8 p

The difficulty of recognising less obvious forms of group-based discrimination

Research on perceptions of discrimination has focused on group-based differential treatment that is widely accepted as being illegitimate (e.g., based on race or gender). The present research investigates how individuals interpret less obvious forms of group-based exclusion based on age (Study 1) and vision correction status (Study 2). We propose that individuals will not question the legitimacy of such treatment, unless they are provided with explicit cues to do so. Participants who merely encountered exclusion (baseline control) did not differ from those who were directed to consider the legitimate reasons for this treatment, with respect to perceived legitimacy, felt anger, and collective action intentions. In contrast, individuals who were directed to consider the illegitimate reasons for the exclusion perceived it to be less legitimate, felt more anger, and reported higher collective action intentions. Participants’ own status as potential victims or mere observers of the exclusion criterion did not influence their legitimacy perceptions or felt anger. Results suggest that when confronted with forms of group-based exclusion that are not commonly defined as discrimination, people do not perceive an injustice unless explicitly directed to seek it out

Cardiovascular responses during light-intensity aerobic exercise with varying levels of limb occlusion pressures.

International Journal of Exercise Science 16(2): 676-687, 2023. The study aimed to assess cardiovascular responses to low-intensity aerobic exercise with varying levels of limb occlusion pressures (LOP) in a healthy population of men and women 30 to 60 years. The study was a single-session repeated measures design. Thirty individuals completed the study. All subjects participated in a single bout of low-intensity cycling (30-39% HRR) with bilateral lower extremity (LE) BFR for four 5-minute stages [0% (No BFR), 40%, 60%, and 80% LOP] with a 2-minute active rest between stages (BFR pressure released). The subjects’ systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), oxygen saturation (SpO2), and ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) were measured at rest, peak, immediately post, post-15 minutes, and post-30 minutes. Peak SBP (no BFR 160.7 ±19.1 mmHg; 40% LOP 173.6 ± 18.7 mmHg; 60 % LOP; 182.5 ± 21.1 mmHg; 80% LOP 193.5± 23.3 mmHg ; p\u3c0.001; =.747), DBP (no BFR 74.9 ± 8.5 mmHg; 40% LOP (83.0 ± 9.0 mmHg;60 % LOP 90.4 ± 8.7 mmHg; 80% LOP 97.7 ± 9.5 mmHg ;p\u3c0.001; =.924), MAP (no BFR 103.5 ± 10.1 mmHg; 40% LOP 113.2 ± 10.5 mmHg; 60% LOP 121.1 ± 11.7 mmHg; 80% LOP 129.7 ± 12.9 mmHg; p\u3c0.001; =.960), and RPE (No BFR 10.0 ± 2.0; 40 % LOP 11.5 ± 2.3; 60% LOP 13.2 ± 2.6; 80% LOP 14.5 ± 3.; p\u3c0.001; =.826) were significantly higher with each progressing stage. The results indicate that low-intensity cycling with bilateral LE BFR for each LOP stage resulted in elevated SBP, DBP, MAP, and RPE despite maintaining a fixed HR

When are anti-fat attitudes understood as prejudice versus truth? An experimental study of social influence effects

Background/Objectives If people who hold anti-fat attitudes believe these attitudes to be true, then anti-prejudice appeals are likely to be unsuccessful, if only because the targets will not see their attitudes as in need of change. The current study examined processes that may lead people to see their anti-fat attitudes as 'truth' or as 'prejudice'. Subjects/Methods Participants (N = 482) read anti-fat statements and were then presented with an interpretation of these statements as 'truth' or 'prejudice'. The source of this interpretation was either an (i) in-group or out-group member and (ii) expert or non-expert. Participants' judgements of the statements were expected to vary such that in-group others and experts would exert more influence than would out-group others and non-experts. Results Participants aligned their own interpretations of an anti-fat statement with those of an expert, but not with those of a non-expert, F(1,466) = 8.97, p <0.05, eta(2)(p) = 0.02. The group membership variable had no effect on judgements of 'truth' or 'prejudice' of the anti-fat statement. Conclusion The expressions that people believe constitute anti-fat prejudice versus truth about people described as overweight are influenced by exposure to expert opinion (in this case, by medical doctors). Implications for the success of weight-based anti-prejudice appeals and for healthcare provision are discussed