Search

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]

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]

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 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.