Social change occurs over years and decades, yet we know little about how people sustain, increase or diminish their actions over time, and why they do so. This article examines diverging trajectories of solidarity-based collective action to support people in developing nations more than 5 years. We suggest that sustained, diminished, and/or increased action over time will be predicted by identification as a supporter, group efficacy beliefs, and discrete emotions about disadvantage. Latent Growth Mixture Models (N = 483) revealed two trajectories with unique signatures: an activist supporter trajectory with a higher intercept and weakly declining action; and a benevolent supporter trajectory with a lower intercept but weakly increasing action. The activist trajectory was predicted by social identification, outrage, and hope, whereas the benevolent supporter trajectory was predicted by sympathy. The results highlight the role of combinations of emotions and the need for person-centered longitudinal methods in collective action research.
AgostiniM.van ZomerenM. (in press). Towards a comprehensive and potentially cross-cultural model of why people engage in collective action: A quantiatve research synthesis of four motivations and structural constraints. Psychological Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000256
2.
AsparouhovT.MuthénB. (2014). Auxiliary variables in mixture modeling: Three-step approaches using M plus. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21(3), 329–341.
3.
BanduraA. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 75–78.
4.
BaysuG.PhaletK. (2017). Beyond Muslim identity: Opinion-based groups in the Gezi Park protest. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 20(3), 350–366.
5.
BilaliR.GodfreyE. B.FreelS. H. (2020). How an election loss leads to a social movement: Reactions to the 2016 US presidential election among liberals predict later collective action and social movement identification. British Journal of Social Psychology, 59(1), 227–247.
6.
BlackwoodL. M.LouisW. R. (2012). If it matters for the group then it matters to me: Collective action outcomes for seasoned activists. British Journal of Social Psychology, 51(1), 72–92.
7.
BursteinP. (2003). The impact of public opinion on public policy: A review and an agenda. Political Research Quarterly, 56, 29–40.
8.
BuryS. M.WenzelM.WoodyattL. (2016). Giving hope a sporting chance: Hope as distinct from optimism when events are possible but not probable. Motivation and Emotion, 40(4), 588–601.
9.
BuryS. M.WenzelM.WoodyattL. (2020). Against the odds: Hope as an antecedent of support for climate change action. British Journal of Social Psychology, 59(2), 289–310.
10.
CameronJ. E. (2004). A three-factor model of social identity. Self and Identity, 3, 239–262.
11.
CibichM.WoodyattL.WenzelM. (2016). Moving beyond “shame is bad”: How a functional emotion can become problematic. Social & Personality Psychology Compass, 10(9), 471–483.
12.
Cohen-ChenS.CrispR. J.HalperinE. (2015). Perceptions of a changing world induce hope and promote peace in intractable conflicts. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(4), 498–512.
13.
Cohen-ChenS.van ZomerenM. (2018). Yes we can? Group efficacy beliefs predict collective action, but only when hope is high. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 77, 50–59.
14.
CurranP. J.HussongA. M. (2003). The use of latent trajectory models in psychopathology research. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112(4), 526–544.
15.
CurranP. J.ObeidatK.LosardoD. (2010). Twelve frequently asked questions about growth curve modeling. Journal of Cognition and Development, 11(2), 121–136.
16.
CurtinN.McGartyC. (2016). Expanding on psychological theories of engagement to understand activism in context (s). Journal of Social Issues, 72(2), 227–241.
17.
DongY.PengC.-Y. J. (2013). Principled missing data methods for researchers. Springerplus, 2(1), 222.
18.
DruryJ.ReicherS. (2000). Collective action and psychological change: The emergence of new social identities. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39(4), 579–604.
19.
FattoriF.PozziM.MarzanaD.MannariniT. (2015). A proposal for an integrated model of prosocial behavior and collective action as the expression of global citizenship. European Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 907–917.
20.
FernandoJ. W.KashimaY.LahamS. M. (2017). Alternatives to the fixed-set model: A review of appraisal models of emotion. Cognition and Emotion, 31(1), 19–32.
21.
FreelS. H.BilaliR.GodfreyE. B. (2020). We are “the Resistance”: Predictors and consequences of self-categorization into the emerging movement to oppose Trump. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430220974758
22.
FurlongC.VignolesV. L. (2021). Social identification in collective climate activism: Predicting participation in the environmental movement, extinction rebellion. Identity, 21, 20–35.
23.
GauselN.LeachC. W.VignolesV. L.BrownR. (2012). Defend or repair? Explaining responses to in-group moral failure by disentangling feelings of shame, rejection, and inferiority. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(5), 941–996.
24.
GreenawayK. H.CichockaA.van VeelenR.LikkiT.BranscombeN. R. (2016). Feeling hopeful inspires support for social change. Political Psychology, 37(1), 89–107.
25.
GrovesJ. M. (1995). Learning to feel: The neglected sociology of social movements. The Sociological Review, 4, 3435–3461.
26.
HaslamS. A.JettenJ.WaghornC. (2009). Social identification, stress and citizenship in teams: a five-phase longitudinal study. Stress and Health: Journal of the International Society for the Investigation of Stress, 25, 21–30.
27.
HornseyM.BlackwoodL.LouisW.FieldingK.MavorK. I.MortonT.O’BrienA.K.-E.PaasonenSmithJ.WhiteK. M. (2006). Why do people engage in collective action? Revising the role of perceived effectiveness. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 1701–1722.
28.
HuL. T.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: a Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55.
29.
IyerA.LeachC. W.CrosbyF. J. (2003). White guilt and racial compensation: The benefits and limits of self-focus. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(1), 117–129.
30.
JungT.WickramaK. A. (2008). An introduction to latent class growth analysis and growth mixture modeling. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(1), 302–317.
31.
KeshavarziS.McGartyC.KhajehnooriB. (2021). Testing social identity models of collective action in an Iranian environmental movement. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 31, 452–464.
32.
KlandermansB. (1997). The Social Psychology of Protest. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
33.
KunstJ. R.BaileyA.PrendergastC.GundersenA. (2019). Sexism, rape myths and feminist identification explain gender differences in attitudes toward the# metoo social media campaign in two countries. Media Psychology, 22(5), 818–843.
34.
LeachC. W. (2017). Understanding shame and guilt. In WoodyattL.WorthingtonE.JrWenzelM.GriffinB. (Eds), Handbook of the Psychology of Self-forgiveness. (pp. 17–28). Springer.
35.
LeachC. W.AllenA. M. (2017). The social psychology of the Black Lives Matter meme and movement. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26(6), 543–547.
36.
LeachC. W.CidamA. (2015). When is shame linked to constructive approach orientation? A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(6), 983–1002.
37.
LivingstoneA. G. (2014). Why the psychology of collective action requires qualitative transformation as well as quantitative change. Contemporary Social Science, 9(1), 121–134.
38.
Lizzio-WilsonM.ThomasE. F.LouisW.AmiotC.MoghaddamF.McGartyC. (2021). How collective action failure shapes group heterogeneity and engagement in conventional and radical action over time. Psychological Science, 32, 519–535. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620970562
39.
LouisW. R.ThomasE.McGartyC.Lizzio-WilsonM.AmiotC.MoghaddamF. (2020). The volatility of collective action: Theoretical analysis and empirical data. Political Psychology, 41, 35–74.
40.
LouisW. R.ThomasE.ChapmanC. M.AchiaT.WibisonoS.MirnajafiZ.DroogendykL. (2019). Emerging research on intergroup prosociality: Group members’ charitable giving, positive contact, allyship, and solidarity with others. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 13(3), Article e12436.
41.
MackieD. M.DevosT.SmithE. R. (2000). Intergroup emotions: Explaining offensive action tendencies in an intergroup context. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(4), 602–616.
42.
McGartyC.BliucA. M.ThomasE. F.BongiornoR. (2009). Collective action as the material expression of opinion-based group membership. Journal of Social Issues, 65, 839–857.
43.
MontadaL.SchneiderA. (1989). Justice and emotional reactions to the disadvantaged. Social Justice Research, 3, 313–344.
44.
OegemaD.KlandermansB. (1994). Why social movement sympathizers don’t participate: Erosion and nonconversion of support. American Sociological Review, 59, 703–722.
45.
OsborneD.SibleyC. G. (2017). Identifying “types” of ideologies and intergroup biases: Advancing a person-centred approach to social psychology. European Review of Social Psychology, 28, 288–332.
46.
OsborneD.YogeeswaranK.SibleyC. G. (2015). Hidden consequences of political efficacy: Testing an efficacy–apathy model of political mobilization. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 21, 533–540.
47.
PittinskyT. L.DiamanteN. (2015). Global bystander nonintervention. Peace and Conflict:. Journal of Peace Psychology, 21, 226–247.
48.
RamN.GrimmK. J. (2009). Methods and measures: Growth mixture modeling: A method for identifying differences in longitudinal change among unobserved groups. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 33(6), 565–576.
49.
SaabR.TauschN.SpearsR.CheungW. Y. (2015). Acting in solidarity: Testing an extended dual pathway model of collective action by bystander group members. British Journal of Social Psychology, 54, 539–560.
50.
SkitkaL. J. (2010). The psychology of moral conviction. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4, 267–281.
51.
SmithE. R.MackieD. M. (2006). It’s about time: Intergroup emotions as time-dependent phenomena. In CapozzaR. B. D. (Ed.), Social identities: Motivational, emotional, cultural influences (pp. 173–187). Psychology Press.
52.
SmithE. R.MackieD. M. (2015). Dynamics of group-based emotions: Insights from intergroup emotions theory. Emotion Review, 7(4), 349–354.
53.
SmithE. R.SegerC. R.MackieD. M. (2007). Can emotions be truly group level? Evidence regarding four conceptual criteria. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 431–446.
54.
SmithG. E.ThomasE. F.McGartyC. (2015). “We must be the change we want to see in the world”: Integrating norms and identities through social interaction. Political Psychology, 36, 543–557.
55.
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(4), 681–705.
56.
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.
57.
TauschN.BeckerJ. C. (2013). Emotional reactions to success and failure of collective action as predictors of future action intentions: A longitudinal investigation in the context of student protests in Germany. British Journal of Social Psychology, 52(3), 525–542.
58.
ThomasE. F.BuryS. M.LouisW. R.AmiotC. E.MolenberghsP.CraneM. F.DecetyJ. (2019). Vegetarian, vegan, activist, radical: Using latent profile analysis to examine different forms of support for animal welfare. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 22(6), 836–857.
59.
ThomasE. F.MavorK. I.McGartyC. (2012). Social identities facilitate and encapsulate action-relevant constructs: A test of the social identity model of collective action. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 15, 75–88.
60.
ThomasE. F.McGartyC. (2018). Giving versus acting: Using latent profile analysis to distinguish between benevolent and activist support for global poverty reduction. British Journal of Social Psychology, 57(1), 189–209.
61.
ThomasE. F.McGartyC.MavorK. I. (2009a). Aligning identities, emotions and beliefs to create commitment to sustainable social and political action. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13, 194–218.
62.
ThomasE. F.McGartyC.MavorK. I. (2009b). Transforming “apathy into movement”: The role of prosocial emotions in motivating action for social change. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13, 310–333.
63.
ThomasE. F.McGartyC.ReeseG.BerndsenM.BliucA.-M. (2016). Where there’s a (collective) will there are (effective) ways: Integrating individual and group-level factors in explaining humanitarian collective action. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42, 1678–1692. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216669134
64.
ThomasE. F.ZubielevitchE.SibleyC.OsborneD. (2020). Testing the social identity model of collective action longitudinally and across structurally disadvantaged and advantaged groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46, 823–838. doi.org/10.1177/0146167219879111
65.
Van De SchootR.SijbrandijM.WinterS. D.DepaoliS.VermuntJ. K. (2017). The GRoLTS-checklist: Guidelines for reporting on latent trajectory studies. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 24(3), 451–467.
66.
Van de VyverJ.AbramsD. (2015). Testing the prosocial effectiveness of the prototypical moral emotions: Elevation increases benevolent behaviors and outrage increases justice behaviors. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 58, 23–33.
67.
Van de VyverJ.AbramsD. (2017). Promoting third-party prosocial behaviour: The potential of moral emotions. In van LeeuwenE.ZagefkaH. (Eds.), Intergroup helping (pp. 349–368). Springer.
68.
van LeeuwenE. (2007). Restoring identity through outgroup helping: Beliefs about international aid in response to the December 2004 tsunami. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 661–671.
69.
van LeeuwenE. (2017). The SOUTH model: On the pros and cons of strategic outgroup helping. In van LeeuwenE.ZagefkaH (Eds), Intergroup Helping. (pp. 131-158). Springer, Cham.
70.
van LeeuwenE.TäuberS. (2010). The strategic side of outgroup helping. In SturmerS.SnyderM. (Eds.), The psychology of prosocial behavior: Group processes, intergroup relations, and helping (pp. 81–99). Blackwell.
71.
van LeeuwenE.van DijkW.KaynakÜ. (2013). Of saints and sinners: How appeals to collective pride and guilt affect outgroup helping. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 16, 781–796.
72.
van ZomerenM.KutlacaM.Turner-ZwinkelsF. (2018). Integrating who “we” are with what “we”(will not) stand for: A further extension of the Social Identity Model of Collective Action. European Review of Social Psychology, 29, 122–160.
73.
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.
74.
van ZomerenM.PaulsI. L.Cohen-ChenS. (2019). Is hope good for motivating collective action in the context of climate change? Differentiating hope’s emotion-and problem-focused coping functions. Global Environmental Change, 58, 101915.
75.
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.
76.
van ZomerenM.SpearsR.LeachC. W. (2008). Exploring psychological mechanisms of collective action: Does relevance of group identity influence how people cope with collective disadvantage?British Journal of Social Psychology, 47, 353–372.
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
