This paper investigates the motivational dynamics in political protest. In addition to the classic variables (anger, politicized identity and efficacy), we are including that of the moral obligation to participate. To test the viability of this new proposal, university students' intention to participate in different protest acts were analyzed. The structural equation analysis shows that moral obligation has a direct influence on the intention to participate and acts as a mediator between the other variables and the criterion variable. Politicized identity also has a direct effect, although less significant, on the intention to participate, as well as having a significant bearing on the other three predictive variables. Finally, efficacy and anger have an influence on the intention to participate through moral obligation. This data points towards the necessity to include moral obligation in the explanatory models of collective action.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArciniegaL. M.GonzálezL. (2012). Explorando los flancos de la lealtad: análisis de la estructura y significado de la dimensión normativa del compromiso organizacional. Revista de Psicología Social, 27, 273–285.
2.
BanduraA. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.New York: Prentice-Hall.
3.
BanduraA. (1991). Social cognitive theory of moral thought and action. InKurtinesW.GewirtzJ. (Eds.), Handbook of moral behavior and development (Vol 1, pp. 45–103). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
4.
GamsonW. A. (1992). Talking politics.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5.
HuL.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.
6.
JasperM. J. (1997). The art of moral protest. Culture, biography and creativity in social movements.Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
7.
KlandermansB. (1984). Mobilization and participation: Social-psychological expansions of resource mobilization theory. American Sociological Review, 49, 583–600.
8.
OppK. D.VossP.GernC. (1995). Origins of a spontaneous revolution: East Germany, 1989.Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
9.
RokeachM. (1973). The nature of human values.New York: Free Press.
10.
SabucedoJ. M.ArceC. (1991). Types of political participation: A multidimensional analysis. European Journal of Political Research, 20, 93–102.
11.
SimonB.KlandermansB. (2001). Politicized collective identity. A social psychological analysis. American Psychologist, 56, 319–331.
12.
SkitkaL. J. (2002). Do the means always justify the ends, or do the ends sometimes justify the means? A value protection model of justice reasoning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 588–597.
13.
SkitkaL. J. (2010). The psychology of moral conviction. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4, 267–281.
14.
StürmerS.SimonB. (2004). Collective action: Towards a dual pathway model. European Review of Social Psychology, 15, 59–99.
15.
StürmerS.SimonB. (2009). Pathways to collective protest: Calculation, identification, or emotion? A critical analysis of the role of group-based anger in social movement participation. Journal of Social Issues, 65, 681–705.
16.
StürmerS.SimonB.LoewyM.JörgerH. (2003). The dual pathway model of social movement participation: The case of East Acceptance Movement. Social Psychology Quarterly, 66, 71–82.
17.
TannerC.MedinD. L.IlievR. (2008). Influence of deontological versus consequentialist orientations on act choices and framing effects: When principles are more important than consequences. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 757–769.
18.
TauschN.BeckerJ. C.SpearsR.ChristO.SaabR.SinghP.SiddiquiR. N. (2011). Explaining radical group behaviour: Developing emotion and efficacy routes to normative and nonnormative collective action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1, 129–148.
19.
TetlockP. E. (2002). Social functionalist frameworks for judgment and choice: Intuitive politicians, theologians, and prosecutors. Psychological Review, 109, 451–471.
20.
Van StekelenburgJ.KlandermansB.Van DijkW. (2011). Combining motivations and emotion: The motivational dynamics of protest participation. Revista de Psicología Social, 26, 91–104.
21.
Van ZomerenM.LeachC. W.SpearsR. E. (2010). Does group efficacy increase group identification? Resolving their paradoxical relationship. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 1055–1060.
22.
Van ZomerenM.SpearsR. E.FisherA. H. (2004). Put your money where your mouth is! Explaining collective action tendencies through group-based anger and group efficacy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 649–664.
23.
VilasX. (2010). A influencia da obriga moral e o contexto na acción política colectiva. Unpublished dissertation, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
24.
WalgraveS.VerhulstJ. (2004, September). Internal diversity of protest. A comparative study of anti-Iraqiwar protest. Paper presented at the APSA conference, Chicago.
25.
ZimbardoP. (2007). The Lucifer effect.New York: Random House.
