Although online discussions may stimulate political participation, little is known about how computer-mediated communication among members of political groups contributes to develop their politicized identity, thus indirectly stimulating collective action. Two studies involving activists from two web-based social movements investigated how online discussions moderate the effects of collective efficacy, group-based anger, and moral obligation on politicized identity. Self-reported frequency of online discussions and activists’ perceptions of two content-related characteristics of online discussions both interacted with collective efficacy and moral obligation beliefs in predicting politicized identity. Politicized identity mediated the effects of these interactions on collective action intention. We discuss how specific characteristics of online political discussions may contribute to politicize group identity via group-level and individual-level paths.
AlbericiA. I.MilesiP. (2013). The influence of the Internet on the psychosocial predictors of collective action. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 23, 373–388. doi:10.1002/casp.2131
2.
BlackwoodL. M.LouisW. (2012). If it matters for the group, then it matters to me: Collective action outcomes for seasoned activists. British Journal of Social Psychology, 51, 72–92. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.2010.02001.x
3.
BraunsbergerK.BucklerB. (2011). What motivates consumers to participate in boycotts: Lessons from the ongoing Canadian seafood boycott. Journal of Business Research, 64, 96–102. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.12.008
4.
BrunstingS.PostmesT. (2002). Social movement participation in the digital age: Predicting offline and online collective action. Small Group Research, 33, 525–554. doi:10.1177/104649602237169
5.
ChoiS. (2014). Flow, diversity, form, and influence of political talk in social-media-based public forums. Human Communication Research, 40, 209–237. doi:10.1111/hcre.12023
6.
ColemanS.GotzeJ. (2001). Bowling together: Online public engagement in policy deliberation. London, UK: Hansard Society.
7.
DavisR. (2005). Politics online: Blogs, chatrooms, and discussion groups in American democracy. New York, NY: Routledge.
8.
DawsonJ. F. (2014). Moderation in management research: What, why, when, and how. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29, 1–19. doi:10.1007/s10869-013-9308-7
9.
DouglasK. M. (2007). Psychology, discrimination and hate groups online. In JoinsonA. N.McKennaK. Y.PostmesT.ReipsU. D. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Internet psychology (pp. 155–163). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
10.
DruryJ.ReicherS. (2010). Collective action and psychological change: The emergence of new social identities. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 579–604. doi:10.1348/014466600164642
11.
GeeA.KhalafA.McGartyC. (2007). Using group-based interaction to change stereotypes about people with mental disorders. Australian Psychologist, 42, 98–105. doi:10.1080/00050060701280581
12.
Gil de ZúñigaH.JungN.ValenzuelaS. (2012). Social media use for news and individuals’ social capital, civic engagement and political participation. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 17, 319–336. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01574.x
13.
GoelS.MasonW.WattsD. J. (2010). Real and perceived attitude agreement in social networks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 611–621. doi:10.1037/a0020697
14.
HaidtJ. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108, 814–834. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.108.4.814
15.
HalpernD.GibbsJ. (2013). Social media as a catalyst for online deliberation? Exploring the affordances of Facebook and YouTube for political expression. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 1159–1168. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.10.008
16.
HayesA. F. (2013). An introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
17.
KeltnerD.GrossJ. J. (1999). Functional accounts of emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 13, 467–480. doi:10.1080/026999399379140
18.
KieslerS.SiegelJ.McGuireT. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39, 1123–1134. doi:10.1037/00033-066X.39.10.1123
LeachC. W.IyerA.PedersenA. (2006). Anger and guilt about ingroup advantage explain the willingness for political action. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1232–1245. doi:10.1177/0146167206289729
21.
LeeE. J. (2008). When are strong arguments stronger than weak arguments? – Deindividuation effects on message elaboration in computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 35, 646–665. doi:10.1177/0093650208321784
22.
LinN. (2008). A network theory of social capital. In CastiglioneD.van DethJ. W.WollebG. (Eds.), The handbook of social capital (pp. 50–69). London, UK: Oxford University Press.
23.
MazzoniD.CicognaniE. (2013). Water as a commons: An exploratory study on the motives for collective action among Italian water movement activists. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 23, 314–330. doi:10.1002/casp.2123
24.
McGartyC.ThomasE. F.LalaG.SmithL. G. E.BliucA. M. (2014). New technologies, new identities, and the growth of mass opposition in the Arab Spring. Political Psychology, 35, 725–740. doi:10.1111/pops.12060
25.
MinS.-J. (2007). Online vs. face-to-face deliberation: Effects on civic engagement. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 12, 1369–1387. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00377.x
26.
PostmesT. (2007). The psychological dimensions of collective action, online. In JoinsonA. N.McKennaK. Y.PostmesT.ReipsU. D. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Internet psychology (pp. 165–184). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
27.
PostmesT.HaslamS. A.SwaabR. I. (2005). Social identity and social influence in small groups: Communication, consensualization and socially shared cognition. European Review of Social Psychology, 16, 1–42. doi:10.1080/10463280440000062
28.
PostmesT.SpearsR.LeeA. T.NovakR. J. (2005). Individuality and social influence in groups: Inductive and deductive routes to group identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 747–763. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.89.5.747
29.
ReicherS. D.SpearsR.PostmesT. (1995). A social identity model of deindividuation phenomena. European Review of Social Psychology, 6, 161–198. doi:10.1080/14792779443000049
30.
ShahD. V.ChoJ.EvelandW. P.KwakN. (2005). Information and expression in a digital age: Modeling Internet effects on civic participation. Communication Research, 32, 531–565. doi:10.1177/0093650205279209
31.
SimonB.KlandermansB. (2001). Politicized collective identity. A social psychological analysis. American Psychologist, 56, 319–331. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.56.4.319
32.
SmithE. R.SegerC. R.MackieD. M. (2007). Can emotions be truly group level? Evidence regarding four different criteria. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 431–446. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.3.431
33.
SmithThomasMcGartyC. (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. doi:10.1111/pops.12180
34.
SpearsR.LeaM. (1994). Panacea or panopticon? The hidden power of computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 21, 427–459. doi:10.1177/009365094021004001
35.
SpoorJ. R.KellyJ. R. (2004). The evolutionary significance of affect in groups: Communication and group bonding. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 7, 398–412. doi:10.1177/1368430204046145
Stromer-GalleyJ.WichowskiA. (2010). Political discussion online. In BurnettR. M.ConsalvoM.EssC. (Eds.), The handbook of Internet studies (pp. 168–187). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
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. doi:10.1177/1368430211413619
40.
ThomasE. F.McGartyC. (2009). The role of efficacy and moral outrage norms in creating the potential for international development activism through group-based interaction. British Journal of Social Psychology, 48, 115–134. doi:10.1348/014466608X313774
41.
ThomasE. F.McGartyC.LouisW. (2014). Social interaction and psychological pathways to political engagement and extremism. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 15–22. doi:10.1002/ejsp.1988
42.
Van StekelenburgJ.KlandermansB. (2013). The social psychology of protest. Current Sociology Review, 61, 886–905. doi:10.1177/0011392113479314
43.
Van ZomerenM.LeachC. W.SpearsR. (2010). Does group efficacy increase group identification? Resolving their paradoxical relationship. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 1055–1060. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.05.006
44.
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. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.504
45.
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, 52–71. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.2010.02000.x
46.
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. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.87.5.649
47.
VilasX.SabucedoJ. M. (2012). Moral obligation: A forgotten dimension in the analysis of collective action. Revista de Psicología Social, 27, 369–375. doi:10.1174/021347412802845577
48.
WilhelmA. (2000). Democracy in the digital age: Challenges to political life in cyberspace. New York, NY: Routledge.
49.
WojcieszakM. E. (2008). False consensus goes online: Impact of ideologically homogeneous groups on false consensus. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72, 781–791. doi:10.1093/poq/nfn056
50.
WojcieszakM. E. (2011). Computer-mediated false consensus: Radical online groups, social networks and news media. Mass Communication & Society, 14, 527–546. doi:10.1080/15205436.2010.513795
