Extensive research has identified factors influencing collective-action participation. However, less is known about how collective-action outcomes (i.e., success and failure) shape engagement in social movements over time. Using data collected before and after the 2017 marriage-equality debate in Australia, we conducted a latent profile analysis that indicated that success unified supporters of change (n = 420), whereas failure created subgroups among opponents (n = 419), reflecting four divergent responses: disengagement (resigned acceptors), moderate disengagement and continued investment (moderates), and renewed commitment to the cause using similar strategies (stay-the-course opponents) or new strategies (innovators). Resigned acceptors were least inclined to act following failure, whereas innovators were generally more likely to engage in conventional action and justify using radical action relative to the other profiles. These divergent reactions were predicted by differing baseline levels of social identification, group efficacy, and anger. Collective-action outcomes dynamically shape participation in social movements; this is an important direction for future research.
BeckerJ. C.TauschN. (2014). When group memberships are negative: The concept, measurement, and behavioral implications of psychological disidentification. Self and Identity, 13(3), 294–321.
4.
BeckerJ. C.TauschN. (2015). A dynamic model of engagement in normative and non-normative collective action: Psychological antecedents, consequences, and barriers. European Review of Social Psychology, 26(1), 43–92.
5.
CeleuxG.SoromenhoG. (1996). An entropy criterion for assessing the number of clusters in a mixture model. Journal of Classification, 13, 195–212.
6.
EllemersN.SpearsR.DoosjeB. (1997). Sticking together or falling apart: In-group identification as a psychological determinant of group commitment versus individual mobility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(3), 617–626.
7.
HanselmannM.TannerC. (2008). Taboos and conflicts in decision making: Sacred values, decision difficulty, and emotions. Judgement and Decision Making, 3(1), 51–63.
8.
HippJ. R.BauerD. J. (2006). Local solutions in the estimation of growth mixture models. Psychological Methods, 11(1), 36–53.
9.
KlineR. B. (2011). Convergence of structural equation modeling and multilevel modeling. In WilliamsM. (Ed.), Handbook of methodological innovation. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
10.
LeachC. W.van ZomerenM.ZebelS.VliekM. L.PennekampS. F.DoosjeB.SpearsR. (2008). Group-level self-definition and self-investment: A hierarchical (multicomponent) model of in-group identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(1), 144–165.
11.
LouisW.ThomasE.McGartyC.Lizzio-WilsonM.AmiotC.MoghaddamF. (2020). The volatility of collective action: Theoretical analysis and empirical data. Political Psychology, 41, 35–74.
12.
LouisW. R. (2009). Collective action—and then what?Journal of Social Issues, 65(4), 727–748.
13.
MillerC. B. (2009). Yes we did! Basking in reflected glory and cutting off reflected failure in the 2008 presidential election. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 9(1), 283–296.
14.
MuthénB. (2006). The potential of growth mixture modelling. Infant and Child Development, 15(6), 623–625.
15.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (2017). Mplus user’s guide (8th ed.). Author.
16.
OsborneD.JostJ. T.BeckerJ. C.BadaanV.SibleyC. G. (2019). Protesting to challenge or defend the system? A system justification perspective on collective action. European Journal of Social Psychology, 49(2), 244–269.
17.
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(1), 288–332.
PostmesT.HaslamS. A.JansL. (2013). A single-item measure of social identification: Reliability, validity, and utility. British Journal of Social Psychology, 52(4), 597–617.
20.
SaabR.SpearsR.TauschN.SasseJ. (2016). Predicting aggressive collective action based on the efficacy of peaceful and aggressive actions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 46(5), 529–543.
21.
SaniF. (2008). Schism in groups: A social psychological account. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(2), 718–732.
22.
ScheepersD.SpearsR.DoosjeB.MansteadA. S. (2006). Diversity in in-group bias: Structural factors, situational features, and social functions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(6), 944–960.
SkitkaL. J.BaumanC. W. (2008). Moral conviction and political engagement. Political Psychology, 29(1), 29–54.
25.
SkitkaL. J.HansonB. E.WisneskiD. C. (2017). Utopian hopes or dystopian fears? Exploring the motivational underpinnings of moralized political engagement. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(2), 177–190.
26.
SkitkaL. J.MorganG. S. (2014). The social and political implications of moral conviction. Political Psychology, 35, 95–110.
27.
SnyderC. R.LassegardM.FordC. E. (1986). Distancing after group success and failure: Basking in reflected glory and cutting off reflected failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(2), 382–388.
28.
StuartA.ThomasE. F.DonaghueN.RussellA. (2013). “We may be pirates, but we are not protesters”: Identity in the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. Political Psychology, 34(5), 753–777.
29.
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.
30.
TauschN.BeckerJ. C.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.
31.
TeinJ. Y.CoxeS.ChamH. (2013). Statistical power to detect the correct number of classes in latent profile analysis. Structural Equation Modeling, 20(4), 640–657.
32.
ThomasE. F.LouisW. R. (2014). When will collective action be effective? Violent and non-violent protests differentially influence perceptions of legitimacy and efficacy among sympathizers. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(2), 263–276.
33.
ThomasE. F.McGartyC.MavorK. I. (2009). Aligning identities, emotions, and beliefs to create commitment to sustainable social and political action. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13(3), 194–218.
34.
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(4), 504–535.
35.
van ZomerenM.PostmesT.SpearsR. (2012). On conviction’s collective consequences: Integrating moral conviction with the social identity model of collective action. British Journal of Social Psychology, 51(1), 52–71.
36.
VerganiM.BartonG.IqbalM. (2017). Beyond social relationships: Investigating positive and negative attitudes towards violent protest within the same social movement. Journal of Sociology, 53(2), 445–460.
37.
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(4), 670–689.
Supplementary Material
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.
