Suchergebnisse

We examine whether aggressive forms of collective action are predicted by their perceived efficacy and the perceived efficacy of peaceful collective action, and whether the two predictors interact. We present data from surveys examining support for and tendencies toward aggressive collective action among university studentswho are opposed to increases in tuition fees in Britain (Study 1) and support for suicide bombings against Israeli civilians among Palestinians during the Second Intifada (Study 2). Our results reveal an interaction between the efficacy of peaceful and aggressive collective actions: The more efficacious aggression is perceived to be, the greater its appeal and the less it is assuaged by the efficacy of peaceful action. This implies that (i) people may consider aggressive action whenever it works, even if peaceful action is efficacious, and (ii) people may consider aggressive action even when it seems unpromising, if peaceful action is not efficacious, in an apparent nothing-to-lose strategy.

We examined predictors of collective action among bystander group members in solidarity with a disadvantaged group by extending the dual pathway model of collective action, which proposes one efficacy-based and one emotion-based path to collective action (Van Zomeren, Spears, Fischer, & Leach, 2004). Based on two proposed functions of social identity performance (Klein, Spears, & Reicher, 2007), we distinguished between the efficacy of collective action at consolidating the identity of a protest movement and its efficacy at achieving social change (political efficacy). We expected identity consolidation efficacy to positively predict collective action tendencies directly and indirectly via political efficacy. We also expected collective action tendencies to be positively predicted by moral outrage and by sympathy in response to disadvantaged outgroup's suffering. These hypotheses were supported in two surveys examining intentions to protest for Palestine in Britain (Study 1), and intentions to attend the June 4th vigil in Hong Kong to commemorate the Tiananmen massacre among a sample of Hong Kong citizens (Study 2). The contributions of these findings to research on the dual pathway model of collective action and the different functions of collective action are discussed.

This paper offers an exploration of research production in social psychology as a global endeavor from the point of view of Anglophone social psychologists (N=232) across 64 countries. We examine social psychologists' beliefs regarding the difficulties in conducting research in social psychology and the inequalities that they report between the Global North, South and East Europe, and the Global South. Across all regions, we found pervasive critical awareness of obstacles to conducting research--including underinvestment in the field, precarious and counter-productive labor conditions, and excessive and biased disciplinary standards. However, we also found that colleagues outside the Global North reported quantitatively and qualitatively larger obstacles to research. These included well-known historically-rooted inequalities but also contemporary systemic procedural and distributive injustices in material, human, and social-political capital. Non-Northern colleagues in particular critically reflected on how these inequalities and injustices are amplified by Northern hegemonies in social, institutional, disciplinary, economic, and political systems. Discussion focuses on the implications of these results for social psychologists, social psychology as a discipline, and its situation within broader hierarchical systems and their intersectionalities. ; reviewed ; acceptedVersion

To date, there is little in the way of theorizing or empirical work on the imagined endpoint of political action aimed at social change – the type of "dream" those engaged in action are attempting to bring into fruition. We suggest that previous approaches have focused narrowly on one type of social change – amelioration of collective grievances. In contrast, we argue that social change is much richer and imaginative than this narrow focus suggests. In the present article we draw on key constructs in social psychology (e.g., goals, efficacy, legitimacy, identity, social system, and social value) in order to develop a typology of social change goals. In doing so, we explain why people might support one type of social change (e.g., revolution) versus others (e.g., separatism or amelioration). The typology is used to discuss future directions for research and to highlight the implications for psychological (and broader) approaches to social change. ; peerReviewed ; publishedVersion

To date, there is little in the way of theorizing or empirical work on the imagined endpoint of political action aimed at social change – the type of "dream" those engaged in action are attempting to bring into fruition. We suggest that previous approaches have focused narrowly on one type of social change – amelioration of collective grievances. In contrast, we argue that social change is much richer and imaginative than this narrow focus suggests. In the present article we draw on key constructs in social psychology (e.g., goals, efficacy, legitimacy, identity, social system, and social value) in order to develop a typology of social change goals. In doing so, we explain why people might support one type of social change (e.g., revolution) versus others (e.g., separatism or amelioration). The typology is used to discuss future directions for research and to highlight the implications for psychological (and broader) approaches to social change.