Scholars widely agree that to mobilize individuals to action, it is vital that interest groups persuade them of the efficacy of participation. Despite firmly establishing the relationship between efficacy and action, research tells us surprisingly little about what kind of messaging most effectively evokes feelings of efficacy. To address this gap in the literature, we conduct a pair of survey experiments, each with three manipulations. The experiments present messages by fictitious advocacy organizations that emphasize the individual (action by an individual can produce change), the identity group (action by a specific identity group can produce change), or the organization (action by our organization can political change). Each message is designed to increase self-efficacy, group efficacy, or organizational efficacy, respectively. We conduct a two-stage analysis to determine first whether each message is able to increase efficacy, and then whether those feelings translate to behavioral support of the campaign. We find that while motivational messages often increase the intent to support a campaign, they only induce behavioral change in limited contexts.
AnspachNMDraguljićG (2019) Effective Advocacy: The Psychological Mechanisms of Environmental Issue Framing. Environmental Politics28 (4): 615–638.
3.
BanduraA (1977) Self-Efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change. Psychological Review84(2): 191–215.
4.
BanduraA (1997) Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: W. H. Freeman.
5.
BenfordRDSnowDA (2000) Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment. Annual Review of Sociology26 (1): 611–639.
6.
BerinskyAJHuberGALenzGS (2012) Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.Com’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis20 (3): 351–368.
7.
BerinskyAJMargolisMFSancesMW (2014) Separating the Shirkers from the Workers? Making Sure Respondents Pay Attention on Self-Administered Surveys. American Journal of Political Science58 (3): 739–753.
8.
BuhrmesterMKwangTGoslingSD (2011) Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A New Source of Inexpensive, Yet High-Quality, Data?Perspectives on Psychological Science6(1): 3–5.
9.
ChenM-F (2015) Self-Efficacy or Collective Efficacy within the Cognitive Theory of Stress Model: Which More Effectively Explains People’s Self-Reported Proenvironmental Behavior?Journal of Environmental Psychology42: 66–75.
10.
CorcoranKEPettinicchioDYoungJTN (2011) The Context of Control: A Cross-National Investigation of the Link Between Political Institutions, Efficacy, and Collective Action: Efficacy and Collective Action. British Journal of Social Psychology50 (4): 575–605.
11.
CorningAFMyersDJ (2002) Individual Orientation Toward Engagement in Social Action. Political Psychology23 (4): 703–729.
12.
DohertyKLWeblerTN (2016) Social Norms and Efficacy Beliefs Drive the Alarmed Segment’s Public-Sphere Climate Actions. Nature Climate Change6 (9): 879–884.
13.
FeldmanLHartPS (2016) Using Political Efficacy Messages to Increase Climate Activism: The Mediating Role of Emotions. Science Communication38 (1): 99–127.
14.
FoxDLSchofieldJW (1989) Issue Salience, Perceived Efficacy and Perceived Risk: A Study of the Origins of Anti-Nuclear War Activity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology19 (10): 805–827.
15.
GrossK (2008) Framing Persuasive Appeals: Episodic and Thematic Framing, Emo-Tional Response, and Policy Opinion. Political Psychology29 (2): 169–192.
16.
GrossKD’AmbrosioL (2004) Framing Emotional Response. Political Psychology25 (1): 1–29.
17.
HamannKRSReeseG (2020) My Influence on the World (of Others): Goal Efficacy Beliefs and Efficacy Affect Predict Private, Public, and Activist Pro-environmental Behavior. Journal of Social Issues76 (1): 35–53.
18.
HanssDBöhmG (2010) Can I Make a Difference? The Role of General and Domain-Specific Self-Efficacy in Sustainable Consumption Decision. Umweltpsychologie14: 46–74.
19.
HartPSFeldmanL (2016) The Influence of Climate Change Efficacy Messages and Efficacy Beliefs on Intended Political Participation. PLoS ONE11 (8): e0157658.
20.
HauserDJSchwarzN (2016) Attentive Turkers: MTurk Participants Perform Better on Online Attention Checks Than Do Subject Pool Participants. Behavior Research Methods48: 400–407.
21.
HermanRRenzD (1999) Theses on Nonprofit Organizational Effectiveness. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly28 (2): 107–126.
22.
HomburgAStolbergA (2006) Explaining Pro-environmental Behavior with a Cognitive Theory of Stress. Journal of Environmental Psychology26 (1): 1–14.
23.
HornseyMChapmanCOerlichsD (2021) Ripple Effects: Can Information About the Collective Impact of Individual Ctions Boost Perceived Efficacy About Climate Change?Journal of Experimental Social Psychology97: 104217.
24.
HuddyL (2013) From Group Identity to Political Cohesion and Commitment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
25.
International Rescue Committee (n.d.) Together, we are making an impact. Available at: www.rescue.org (accessed 6 January 2022).
26.
JugertPGreenawayKHBarthM, et al. (2016) Collective Efficacy Increases Pro-environmental Intentions through Increasing Self-Efficacy. Journal of Environmental Psychology48: 12–23.
27.
KaneJV (2024) More Than Meets the ITT: A Guide for Anticipating and Investigating Nonsignificant Results in Survey Experiments. Journal of Experimental Political Science. Epub ahead of print 19 February. DOI: 10.1017/XPS.2024.1.
28.
KimHCameronG (2011) Emotions Matter in Crisis: The Role of Anger and Sadness in the Publics’ Response to Crisis News Framing and Corporate Crisis Response. Communication Research38 (6): 826–855.
29.
KinderD (2003) Communication and Politics in the Age of Information. In:SearsDHuddyLJervisR (eds) Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology, 1st edn. New York: Oxford University Press, pp.357–393.
30.
KlandermansB (1984) Mobilization and Participation: Social-Psychological Expansions of Resource Mobilization Theory. American Sociological Review49 (5): 583–600.
31.
KuhneRSchemerC (2017) The Emotional Effects of News Frames on Infomation Processing and Opinion Formation. Communication Research42 (3): 387–407.
32.
KungFYHKwokNBrownDJ (2018) Are Attention Check Questions a Threat to Scale Validity?Applied Psychology67 (2): 264–283.
33.
McentireKJLeibyMKrainM (2015) Human Rights Organizations as Agents of Change: An Experimental Examination of Framing and Micromobilization. American Political Science Review109 (3): 407–426.
34.
Oxfam International (2022) Towards an Equal Future. Available at: https://www.oxfamamerica.org/ (accessed 10 January 2022).
35.
PaolacciGChandlerJ (2014) Inside the Turk: Understanding Mechanical Turk as a Participant Pool. Current Directions in Psychological Science23 (3): 184–188.
PreacherKJHayesAF (2008) Asymptotic and Resampling Strategies for Assessing and Comparing Indirect Effects in Multiple Mediator Models. Behavior Research Methods40 (3): 879–891.
38.
SimonBSturmerSLoewyM, et al. (1998) Collective Identification and Social Movement Participation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology74(3): 646–658.
39.
SmithLGEThomasEFMcGartyC (2015) ‘We Must Be the Change We Want to See in the World’: Integrating Norms and Identities through Social Interaction: The Identity-Norm Nexus. Political Psychology36 (5): 543–557.
40.
StürmerSSimonB (2004) The Role of Collective Identification in Social Movement Participation: A Panel Study in the Context of the German Gay Movement. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin30 (3): 263–277.
41.
TauschNBeckerJSpearsR, et al. (2011) Explaining Radical Group Behaviour: Developing Emotion and Efficacy Routes to Normative and Non-normative Collective Action: (508062012-001). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology101(1): 129–148.
42.
ThomasEFMcGartyCA (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 Psychology48 (1): 115–134.
43.
ThomasEFMcGartyCMavorKI (2009) Aligning Identities, Emotions, and Beliefs to Create Commitment to Sustainable Social and Political Action. Personality and Social Psychology Review13 (3): 194–218.
44.
Van StekelenburgJKlandermansB (2013) The Social Psychology of Protest. Current Sociology61 (5–6): 886–905.
45.
Van ZomerenM (2013) Four Core Social-Psychological Motivations to Undertake Collective Action: Four Motivations for Collective Action. Social and Personality Psychology Compass7 (6): 378–388.
46.
Van ZomerenMPostmesTSpearsR (2008) Toward an Integrative Social Identity Model of Collective Action: A Quantitative Research Synthesis of Three Socio-psychological Perspectives. Psychological Bulletin134(4): 504–535.
47.
Van ZomerenMPostmesT (2012) On Conviction’s Collective Consequences: Integrating Moral Conviction with the Social Identity Model of Collective Action: Conviction’s Collective Consequences. British Journal of Social Psychology51 (1): 52–71.
48.
Van ZomerenMSpearsRLeachCW (2010) Experimental Evidence for a Dual Pathway Model Analysis of Coping with the Climate Crisis. Journal of Environmental Psychology30 (4): 339–346.
49.
Van ZomerenMSpearsRFischerAH, et al. (2004) Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is! Explaining Collective Action Tendencies Through Group-Based Anger and Group Efficacy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology87 (5): 649–664.
50.
WillemsJJegersMFaulkL (2015) Organizational Effectiveness Reputation in the Nonprofit Sector. Public Performance & Management Review39(2): 454–475.
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.
