Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2014-2
When Will Collective Action Be Effective? Violent and Non-Violent Protests Differentially Influence Perceptions of Legitimacy and Efficacy Among Sympathizers
Collective action will be effective in achieving broader social change goals to the extent that it influences public opinion yet the degree to which collective action “works” in changing opinion is rarely studied. Experiment 1 (n = 158) showed that, consistent with a logic of strategic non-violence, non-violent collective action more effectively conveys a sense of the illegitimacy of the issue and the efficacy of the group, thereby promoting support for future non-violent actions. Experiment 2 (n = 139) explored the moderating role of allegations of corruption. A social context of corruption effectively undermined the efficacy and legitimacy of non-violent collective action, relative to support for violence, thereby promoting (indirectly) support for future extreme action. The implications of this research, for the logic of strategic non-violence and mobilizing supportive public opinion, are discussed.
BanduraA. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman.
3.
BanduraA. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 75-78.
4.
BarnesS. H.KaaseM. (1979). Political action. Mass participation in five western democracies. London, England: SAGE.
5.
BaronR. M.KennyD. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
6.
BeckerJ. C.TauschN.SpearsR.ChristO. (2011). Committed dis(s)idents: Participation in radical collective action fosters disidentification with the broader in-group but enhanced political identification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 1104-1116.
7.
BeckerJ. C.TauschN.WagnerU. (2011). Emotional consequences of collective action participation: Differentiating self-directed and outgroup-directed emotions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 1587-1598.
8.
BullockJ. G.GreenD. P.HaS. E. (2010). Yes, but what’s the mechanism? (Don’t expect an easy answer). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 550-558.
9.
BursteinP. (2003). The impact of public opinion on public policy: A review and an agenda. Political Research Quarterly, 56,29-40.
10.
BursteinP.LintonA. (2002). The impact of political parties, interest groups, and social movement organizations on public policy: Some recent evidence and theoretical concerns. Social Forces, 81, 380-408.
11.
Della PortaD.VannucciA. (1997). The “perverse effects” of political corruption. Political Studies, 45, 516-538.
DoddV. (2011, October24). Cost of English riots much higher than first thought, met police report suggests. Initial findings of metropolitan police review put claims for loss and damage in London alone as high as £300m. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oct/24/england-riots-cost-police-report
14.
DruryJ.ReicherS. (2005). Explaining enduring empowerment: A comparative study of collective action and psychological outcomes. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 35-58.
15.
FairC. C.ShepherdB. (2006). Who supports terrorism? Evidence from fourteen Muslim countries. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 29, 51-74.
16.
HaslamS. A.ReicherS. D. (2012). When prisoners take over the prison: A social psychology of resistance. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16, 154-179.
17.
HayesA. F. (2012). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
18.
HayesB. C.McAllisterI. (2005). Public support for political violence and paramilitarism in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Terrorism and Political Violence, 17, 599-617.
19.
HornseyM.BlackwoodL.LouisW.FieldingK.MavorK. I.MortonT.. . .WhiteK. M. (2006). Why do people engage in collective action? Revising the role of perceived effectiveness. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 1701-1722.
20.
Institute for Cetacean Research. (2012). Illegal harassment and terrorism against ICR research. Retrieved from http://www.icrwhale.org/gpandsea.html
IyerA.SchmaderT.LickelB. (2007). Why individuals protest the perceived transgressions of their country: The role of anger, shame and guilt. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 572-587.
23.
JonesS. G.LibickiM. C. (2008). How terrorist groups end: Lessons for countering al Qa’ida. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
24.
KlandermansB. (1997). The social psychology of protest. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
25.
KlandermansB.OegemaD. (1987). Potentials, networks, motivations, and barriers: Steps toward participation in social movements. American Sociological Review, 52, 519-531.
26.
LeuprechtC.HataleyT.MoskalenkoS.McCauleyC. (2010). Containing the narrative: Strategy and tactics in countering the storyline of global jihad. Journal of Policing, Intelligence, & Counter-Terrorism, 5, 42-57.
McCauleyC.MoskalenkoS. (2008). Mechanisms of political radicalization: Pathways towards terrorism. Terrorism and Political Violence, 20, 415-433.
31.
McGartyC.ThomasE. F.LalaG.SmithL. G. E.BliucA.-M. (2013). New technologies, new identities and the growth of mass opposition in the “Arab Spring.”Political Psychology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1111/pops.12060
32.
McLeodD. M.DetenberB. H. (1999). Framing effects of television news coverage of social protest. Journal of Communication, 49, 3-23.
33.
MoskalenkoS. (2008). Moral mires and the grip of the group: Morality as internalized group norms. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 21, 301-308.
34.
MoskalenkoS.McCauleyC. (2009). Measuring political mobilization: The distinction between activism and radicalism. Terrorism and Political Violence, 21, 239-260.
35.
MosleyG. (2004). Let the whales swim free?Richmond: Project Jonah Australia.
36.
PapeR. A. (2005). Dying to win: The strategic logic of suicide terrorism. New York, NY: Random House.
37.
PaulC. (2010). As a fish swims in the sea: Relationships between factors contributing to support for terrorist or insurgent groups. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 33, 488-510.
38.
PivenF. F.ClowardR. A. (1977). Poor people’s movements: Why they succeed, how they fail. New York, NY: Vintage Books.
39.
PivenF. F.ClowardR. A. (1991). Collective protest: A critique of resource mobilization theory. International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society, 4, 435-458.
40.
PreacherK. J.HayesA. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879-891.
SaabR.SpearsR.TauschN. (2011). Violence efficacy and nonviolence efficacy as predictors of violent forms of collective action. Manuscript submitted for publication, Cardiff University.
ScarceR. (2006). Eco-warriors updated edition: Understanding the radical environmental movement. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
46.
ShoemakerP. (1982). The perceived legitimacy of deviant political groups: Two experiments on media effects. Communication Research, 9, 249-286.
47.
SimonB.KlandermansB. (2001). Politicized collective identity: A social psychological analysis. American Psychologist, 56, 319-331.
48.
SpearsR. (2010). Group rationale, collective sense: Beyond intergroup bias. British Journal of Social Psychology, 49, 1-20.
49.
StephenM. J.ChenowethE. (2008). Why civil resistance works: The strategic logic of nonviolent conflict. International Security, 33, 7-44.
50.
StuartA.ThomasE. F.DonaghueN.RussellA. (2013). “Wemaybe pirates, but we are not protesters”: Identity in the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. Political Psychology, 34, 753-777.
51.
SubašićE.ReynoldsK. J.TurnerJ. C. (2008). The political solidarity model of social change: Dynamics of self-categorization in intergroup power relations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12, 330-352.
52.
TauschN.BeckerJ.SpearsR.ChristO.SaabR.SinghP.SiddiquiR. N. (2011). Explaining radical group behavior: Developing emotion and efficacy routes to normative and nonnormative collective action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 129-148.
53.
ThomasE. F.LouisW. R. (2013). Doing democracy: The social psychological mobilization and consequences of collective action. Social Issues and Policy Review, 7, 173-200.
54.
ThomasE. F.SmithL. G. E.McGartyC.PostmesT. (2010). Nice and nasty: The formation of prosocial and hostile social movements. International Review of Social Psychology, 23, 17-55.
55.
van ZomerenM.IyerA. (2009). An introduction to the social and psychological dynamics of collective action. Journal of Social Issues, 65, 645-660.
56.
van ZomerenM.LeachC. W.SpearsR. (2012). Protesters as “passionate economists”: A dynamic dual pathway model of approach coping with collective disadvantage. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16, 180-199.
57.
van ZomerenM.PostmesT.SpearsR. (2008). Toward an integrative social identity model of collective action: A quantitative research synthesis of three socio-psychological perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 504-535.
58.
van ZomerenM.SpearsR.FischerA. H.LeachC. W. (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.
WorchelP.HesterP. G.KopalaP. S. (1974). Collective protest and legitimacy of authority. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 18, 37-54.
61.
WrightS. C. (2009). The next generation of collective action research. Journal of Social Issues, 65, 859-879.
62.
WrightS. C.TaylorD. M.MoghaddamF. M. (1990). Responding to membership in a disadvantaged group: From acceptance to collective protest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 994-1003.
63.
WrightS. C.TroppL. (2002). Collective action in response to disadvantage: Intergroup perceptions, social identification, and social change. In WalkerI.SmithH. (Eds.), Relative deprivation: Specification, development and integration (pp. 200-236). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
64.
ZaalM. P.LaarC. V.StåhlT.EllemersN.DerksB. (2011). By any means necessary: The effects of regulatory focus and moral conviction on hostile and benevolent forms of collective action. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 670-689.
