Search

While considering the role of group-level factors as predictors of collective action, research has overlooked the role of group prototypes in determining willingness to engage in collective action. To begin to investigate this area, we conducted two correlational studies (N s = 141 and 98) in high schools examining the association between prototypical ingroup members' desire to engage in collective action and participants' collective action on behalf of a disadvantaged group (immigrants). Results showed a positive association between these two variables. We also investigated boundaries of this effect, finding that the association emerged when participants lacked personal experiences with the disadvantaged group (cross-group friendships; Study 1) or identified more with their ingroup, an effect also found when including a behavioral measure of collective action (Study 2). Intentions to follow the prototypical ingroup member emerged as the mediator (Study 2). It is worth noting that our methodology allowed us to assess prototypicality in a naturalistic context by calculating a metacontrast ratio for each group member, in line with self-categorization theory's conceptualization of prototypicality. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications, with reference to the role of prototypicality as a means of social influence and to developing social norms in the context of collective action. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Leadership is central to understanding social continuity and change, though rarely features in the study of collective action. Across three experiments (total N = 687), we examine how followers' support for pro‐change leaders (Experiments 1–3) and pro‐status quo leaders (Experiments 1–2) varies as a function of leader alignment with group normative trajectory, the presence (vs. absence) of competing leaders, and shared group membership with followers. When pro‐change leaders were aligned with the normative trajectory of the group, they elicited higher collective action and voting intentions compared to pro‐status quo leaders (Experiments 1–2). When change leaders were non‐aligned, participants instead supported the pro‐status quo alternative (Experiment 1–2). Finally, the presence of leadership contests with aligned change leaders (Experiment 2) and pro‐status quo leaders (Experiments 2–3) reduced collective action and support for non‐aligned change leaders or those facing a polarised followership. Implications for research at the nexus of leadership and collective action are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The responsibility for addressing gender inequality typically falls on women. More recently, evidence has shown that solidarity-based framing is a starting point for increasing men's support of gender equality efforts. This paper moves beyond these women's issue and solidarity approaches to examine whether positioning men as being either responsible for addressing inequality (Experiment 1; N = 258) or being directly affected by inequality themselves (Experiment 2; N = 543), shapes men's (and women's) attitudes toward male and female leaders promoting gender equality and their mobilization toward this cause. In Experiment 1, men evaluated male and female leaders as more prototypical and higher in leadership identification under common cause compared to women's issue frames (and also compared to men's responsibility frames for leadership identification). In Experiment 2 all participants evaluated (male) leaders more positively under common cause and covictimization framing compared to men's victimization framing. Contrary to predictions, men's (Experiments 1-2) and women's (Experiment 2) collective action intent remained stable across message frames. Yet when it comes to mobilization, in Experiment 2 women showed solidarity more readily (i.e., were committed to gender equality across frames) while men's mobilization was dependent on men being directly victimized. We discuss practical and theoretical implications of mobilizing support for gender equality, and important caveats of increasing male allies' involvement in the movement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The social psychology of intergroup relations has emerged largely from studies of how one group of people (e.g., whites) think and feel about another (e.g., blacks). By reducing the social world to binary categories, this approach has provided an effective and efficient methodological framework. However, it has also obscured important features of social relations in historically divided societies. This paper highlights the importance of investigating intergroup relationships involving more than two groups and of exploring not only their psychological but also their political significance. Exemplifying this argument, we discuss the conditions under which members of disadvantaged groups either dissolve into internecine competition or unite to challenge the status quo, highlighting the role of complex forms of social comparison, identification, contact, and third-party support for collective action. Binary conceptualizations of intergroup relations, we conclude, are the product of specific sociohistorical practices rather than a natural starting point for psychological research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present study investigated the mediating role of sense of belonging in the relations between workplace sexism and (a) mental health and (b) job satisfaction. Participants were 190 women from a large Australian trade union that represented mainly male‐dominated jobs. They completed an online survey that contained measures of sexism, sense of belonging in the industry, mental health, and job satisfaction. As predicted, sense of belonging mediated the associations between organizational sexism and both mental health and job satisfaction. In addition, sense of belonging mediated the association between interpersonal sexism and mental health. These results are discussed in relation to strategies for supporting women and mitigating the effects of sexism in male‐dominated workplaces. The Open Science Framework webpage for this project is at: https://osf.io/a3yqc/. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Gender (in)equality is typically studied as a women’s issue to be addressed via systemic measures (e.g., government policy). As such, research focusing on mobilising men (and women) towards achieving gender equality is rare. In contrast, this paper examines the mobilisation of both men and women towards gender equality as common cause. Experiment 1 shows that men’s collective action intentions increase after reading messages that position men as agents of change towards gender equality, compared to messages that frame this issue as stemming from inadequate government policy. Experiments 2 and 3 demonstrate that messages framing gender equality as an issue for both men and women increase men’s collective action intentions, compared to when gender inequality is framed as primarily concerning women. However, this effect emerges primarily under conditions where the source of message is male (Experiment 3). Practical and theoretical implications for mobilising political solidarity in gender equality contexts are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Social norms are of increasing interest to public policy experts and those conducting behaviour change interventions (e.g. safe driving, recycling). While there is agreement that social norms play a central role in explaining behaviour, such consensus is lacking when it comes to explaining the process through which this occurs. Economics, social marketing and political science focus on individual self-interest and goal satisfaction and social (dis)approval. In contrast social psychology also incorporates collective interests through its analysis of social identity and ingroup processes. To fully understand behaviour change, it is argued that greater engagement is needed with the links between shifts in social identity, and ingroup norms. As definitions of who 'we' are shift, so too does what 'we' do. Implications for behaviour change interventions are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For a vibrant and viable psychology of social change it is necessary to examine its place and contribution to the societal processes it seeks to understand, explain, and (potentially) affect. In this article, we first consider the impact that research and theorizing on social change (should) have and related issues of how we communicate about our work (and to whom) and dilemmas around researchers being active participants in the change process. Second, we consider emerging trends in the field and comment on meta-theoretical and 'meta-methodological' issues in going forward, including the interaction between individual and society, having theoretical models of the person that allow us to account for such an interaction, as well as rethinking our methodology and ways of 'doing' psychology to better reflect people's experiences of mobilization and participation. In line with the proposed rethinking of our theories and methods, the final section introduces a new paradigm for investigating the nexus of social change and leadership dynamics. The overall aim of the article is to reflect on key questions and dilemmas facing the field and provide some starting points for debating and shaping its future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Common experience of injustice can be a potent motivator of collective action and efforts to achieve social change - and of such efforts becoming more widespread. In this research, we propose that the effects of co-victimization on collective action are a function of inclusive social identity. Experiment 1 ( N= 61) demonstrated that while presence (compared to absence) of co-victimization positively predicted consumer (i.e., participants) willingness to act collectively in solidarity with sweatshop workers, this effect was mediated by inclusive social identity. In Experiment 2 ( N= 120), the salience of inclusive social identity was experimentally manipulated and interacted with co-victimization to predict collective action. When inclusive social identity was salient, co-victimization enhanced collective action, including willingness to pay extra for products made ethically and in support of fair wages for workers. In contrast, collective action was attenuated when co-victimization took place in the absence of inclusive social identity. Implications for understanding when co-victimization is transformed into common fate and political solidarity with the disadvantaged are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In both personality psychology and social psychology there is a trajectory of theory and research that has its roots in Gestalt psychology and interactionism. This work is outlined in this paper along with an exploration of the hitherto neglected points of connection it offers these two fields. In personality psychology the focus is on dynamic interactionism and in social psychology, mainly through social identity theory and self-categorization theory, it is on the interaction between the individual (‘I’) and group (‘we’) and how the environment (that includes the perceiver) is given meaning. What emerges is an understanding of the person and behaviour that is more integrated, dynamic and situated. The aim of the paper is to stimulate new lines of theory and research consistent with this view of the person. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a response to commentaries on a paper on points of connection between personality and social psychology. The paper aimed to investigate whether the self-categorization theory of the self-process, and related work in personality psychology on dynamic interactionism, may be used to explain the person and behaviour. The themes that emerged across the commentaries are examined.

The long-standing policy of “practical reconciliation” between Australian Indigenous and Non-Indigenous people has actively disregarded the need to redress past injustice as the basis of current intergroup inequality. While this approach has received extensive critique from reconciliation scholars, its implications for Non-Indigenous involvement in reconciliation have been neglected. When Indigenous disadvantage is divorced from its social and historical context it is also more likely to be seen as having little to do with “us” as Non-Indigenous Australians. In contrast, when inequality is seen as stemming from the past and present reality of intergroup relations, and as such shapes the meaning of Non-Indigenous identity, it will be seen as more illegitimate, in need of change, and is more likely to motivate political engagement in the reconciliation process. The current study tests and finds support for this idea. Importantly, controlling for the contributions of perceived legitimacy of inequality and need for social change, Non-Indigenous identity meaning continued to significantly predict intentions to vote and engage in political action in support of reconciliation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a political solidarity model of social change that explores the process by which members of the majority challenge the authority in solidarity with the minority. It is argued that political solidarity as a social change process involves a contest between the authority and the minority over the meaning of a shared identity with the majority. Social and political change involves a contest between social power and those who collectively challenge the intergroup relations.