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]

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]