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]

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]

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.