In a three-wave longitudinal study conducted in the first 100 days of Trump’s presidency, this paper examines how people come to self-categorize into the emerging social movement “the Resistance,” and how self-categorization into this movement influences future participation in collective action and perceptions of the movement’s efficacy. Conventional collective action (e.g., protest, lobby legislators)—but not persuasive collective action (e.g., posting on social media)—and perceived identity consolidation efficacy of the movement at Wave 1 predicted a higher likelihood of self-categorization into the movement 1 month later (Wave 2) and 2 months later (Wave 3). Self-categorization into the Resistance predicted two types of higher subsequent movement efficacy perceptions, and helped sustain the effects of conventional collective action and movement efficacy beliefs at Wave 1 on efficacy beliefs at Wave 3. Implications for theory and future research on emerging social movements are discussed.
AbramsD.HoggM. A. (2010). Social identity and self-categorization. In DovidioJ. F.HewstoneM.GlickP.EssesV. M. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of prejudice, stereotyping and discrimination (pp. 179–193). SAGE Publishing.
BaysuG.PhaletK. (2017). Beyond Muslim identity: Opinion-based groups in the Gezi Park protest. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 20, 350–366. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430216682353
4.
BilaliR.GodfreyE. B.FreelS. H. (2020). How an election loss leads to a social movement: Reactions to the 2016 U.S. presidential election among liberals predict later collective action and social movement identification. British Journal of Social Psychology, 59, 227–247. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12335
5.
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, 72–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.2010.02001.x
6.
BouasK. S.ArrowH. (1995). The development of group identity in computer and face-to-face groups with membership change. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 4, 153–178. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00749745
7.
CollinsL. M.SchaferJ. L.KamC. M. (2001). A comparison of inclusive and restrictive strategies in modern missing data procedures. Psychological Methods, 6, 330–351. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.6.4.330
DruryJ.ReicherS. (2000). Collective action and psychological change: The emergence of new social identities. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 579–604. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466600164642
11.
DruryJ.ReicherS. (2005). Explaining enduring empowerment: A comparative study of collective action and psychological outcomes. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 35–58. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.231
12.
DruryJ.ReicherS. (2009). Collective psychological empowerment as a model of social change: Researching crowds and power. Journal of Social Issues, 65, 707–725. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2009.01622.x
13.
DuncanL. E. (2012). The psychology of collective action. In DeauxK.SnyderM. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of personality and social psychology (pp. 781–803). Oxford University Press.
14.
EndersC. K.MansolfM. (2018). Assessing the fit of structural equation models with multiply imputed data. Psychological Methods, 23, 76–93. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000102
FominayaC. F. (2010). Creating cohesion from diversity: The challenge of collective identity formation in the global justice movement. Sociological Inquiry, 80, 377–404. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.2010.00339.x
GrahamJ. W.OlchowskiA. E.GilreathT. D. (2007). How many imputations are really needed? Some practical clarifications of multiple imputation theory. Prevention Science, 8, 206–213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-007-0070-9
HamakerE. L.KuiperR. M.GrasmanR. P. (2015). A critique of the cross-lagged panel model. Psychological Methods, 20, 102–116. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038889
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
KellyC.BreinlingerS. (1995). Attitudes, intentions, and behavior: A study of women’s participation in collective action. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 1430–1445. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1995.tb02625.x
29.
KhanS. S.HopkinsN.ReicherS.TewariS.SrinivasanN.StevensonC. (2016). How collective participation impacts social identity: A longitudinal study from India. Political Psychology, 37, 309–325. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12260
30.
KimK. H. (2005). The relation among fit indexes, power, and sample size in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 12, 368–390. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1203_2
LiuY.MillsapR. E.WestS. G.TeinJ. Y.TanakaR.GrimmK. J. (2017). Testing measurement invariance in longitudinal data with ordered-categorical measures. Psychological Methods, 22, 486–506. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000075
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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2009.01627.x
MusgroveL.McGartyC. (2008). Opinion-based group membership as a predictor of collective emotional responses and support for pro- and anti-war action. Social Psychology, 39, 37–47. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335.39.1.37
37.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (2017). Mplus user’s guide (version 8). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
NewsomJ. T. (2015). Longitudinal structural equation modeling: A comprehensive introduction. Routledge.
40.
OdağÖ.UluğÖ. M.SolakN. (2016). “Everyday I’m çapuling”: Identity and collective action through social network sites in the Gezi Park protests in Turkey. Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications, 28, 148–159. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000202
41.
OysermanD.BybeeD.TerryK. (2006). Possible selves and academic outcomes: How and when possible selves impel action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 188–204. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.1.188
42.
PehrsonS.StevensonC.MuldoonO. T.ReicherS. (2014). Is everyone Irish on St Patrick’s Day? Divergent expectations and experiences of collective self-objectification at a multicultural parade. British Journal of Social Psychology, 53, 249–264. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12029
43.
PostmesT.BrunstingS. (2002). Collective action in the age of the Internet: Mass communication and online mobilization. Social Science Computer Review, 20, 290–301. https://doi.org/10.1177/089443930202000306
44.
PostmesT.SpearsR.SakhelK.De GrootD. (2001). Social influence in computer-mediated communication: The effects of anonymity on group behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1243–1254. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672012710001
45.
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. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12095
SchumannS.KleinO. (2015). Substitute or stepping stone? Assessing the impact of low-threshold online collective actions on offline participation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 308–322. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2084
48.
SeligJ. P.LittleT. D. (2012). Autoregressive and cross-lagged panel analysis for longitudinal data. In LaursenB.LittleT. D.CardN. A. (Eds.), Handbook of developmental research methods (pp. 265–278). Guilford Press.
49.
SelvanathanH. P.JettenJ. (2020). From marches to movements: Building and sustaining a social movement following collective action. Current Opinion in Psychology, 35, 81–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.04.004
50.
SelvanathanH. P.LickelB. (2019). Empowerment and threat in response to mass protest shape public support for a social movement and social change: A panel study in the context of the Bersih movement in Malaysia. European Journal of Social Psychology, 49, 230–243. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2502
51.
SmithL. G.GavinJ.SharpE. (2015). Social identity formation during the emergence of the Occupy movement. European Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 818–832. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2150
StuartA.ThomasE.DonaghueN. (2018). “I don’t really want to be associated with the self-righteous left extreme”: Disincentives to participation in collective action. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 6, 242–270. https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.v6i1.567
56.
StürmerS.SimonB. (2004a). The role of collective identification in social movement participation: A panel study in the context of the German gay movement. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 263–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203256690
57.
StürmerS.SimonB. (2004b). Collective action: Towards a dual-pathway model. European Review of Social Psychology, 15, 59–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280340000117
58.
StürmerS.SimonB.LoewyM.JörgerH. (2003). The dual-pathway model of social movement participation: The case of the fat acceptance movement. Social Psychology Quarterly, 66, 71–82. https://doi.org/10.2307/3090142
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430211413619
60.
ThomasE. F.McGartyC. A. (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. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466608X313774
61.
ThomasE. F.McGartyC.LalaG.StuartA.HallL. J.GoddardA. (2015). Whatever happened to Kony2012? Understanding a global Internet phenomenon as an emergent social identity. Eur. Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 356–367. http://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2094
62.
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, 194–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309341563
63.
ThomasE. F.McGartyC.MavorK. (2016). Group interaction as the crucible of social identity formation: A glimpse at the foundations of social identities for collective action. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 19, 137–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430215612217
64.
TiceD. M. (1992). Self-concept change and self-presentation: The looking glass self is also a magnifying glass. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 435–451. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.3.435
65.
TurnerJ. C. (1985). Social categorization and the self-concept: A social cognitive theory of group behavior. In LawlerE. J. (Ed.), Advances in group processes: Theory and research (Vol. 2, pp. 77–121). JAI Press.
66.
TurnerJ. C.OakesP. J.HaslamS. A.McGartyC. (1994). Self and collective: Cognition and social context. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 454–463. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167294205002
67.
UluğÖ. M.AcarY. G. (2019). “Names will never hurt us”: A qualitative exploration of çapulcu identity through the eyes of Gezi Park protesters. British Journal of Social Psychology, 58, 714–729. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12305
Van ZomerenM.LeachC. W.SpearsR. (2010). Does group efficacy increase group identification? Resolving their paradoxical relationship. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 1055–1060. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.02.006
70.
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868311430835
71.
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.504
72.
VignolesV. L.ManziC.RegaliaC.JemmoloS.ScabiniE. (2008). Identity motives underlying desired and feared possible future selves. Journal of Personality, 76, 1165–1200. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00518.x
73.
WhiteI. R.CarlinJ. B. (2010). Bias and efficiency of multiple imputation compared with complete-case analysis for missing covariate values. Statistics in Medicine, 29, 2920–2931. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.3944
WilkesR. (2006). The protest actions of indigenous peoples: A Canadian–US comparison of social movement emergence. American Behavioral Scientist, 50, 510–525. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764206294059
76.
WilkinsD. J.LivingstoneA. G.LevineM. (2019). Whose tweets? The rhetorical functions of social media use in developing the Black Lives Matter movement. British Journal of Social Psychology, 58, 786–805. https://doi.org/:10.1111/bjso.12318
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.
