Most social movements will encounter setbacks in their pursuit of sociopolitical change. However, little is known about how movements are affected after protestors fail to achieve their aims. What are the effects of failure on subsequent engagement in various conventional and radical actions? Does failure promote divergent reactions among protestors and/or dissatisfaction with democracy? A meta-analysis of nine experiments (N = 1,663) assessed the effects of one-off failure on protestors’ reactions, subsequent tactical choices, and support for democracy; and iterative stochastic simulations modeled the effects of failure over multiple protests over time. Results indicated that initial failure gives rise to divergent, somewhat contradictory responses among protestors and that these responses are further influenced by the repeated failure (vs. success) over time. Further, the simulations identified “tipping points” in these responses that promote radicalization and undermine support for democracy.
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.
2.
BlackwoodL.LouisW. (2017). Choosing between conciliatory and oppositional leaders: The role of out-group signals and in-group leader candidates’ collective action tactics. European Journal of Social Psychology, 47(3), 320–336.
3.
BondR. M.FarissC. J.JonesJ. J.KramerA. D.MarlowC.SettleJ. E.FowlerJ. H. (2012). A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization. Nature, 489(7415), 295–298.
4.
CrelinstenR. D. (2002). Analysing terrorism and counter-terrorism: A communication model. Terrorism and Political Violence, 14(2), 77–122.
5.
DavenportC. (2007). State repression and political order. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 1–23.
6.
DruryJ.ReicherS. (2009). Collective psychological empowerment as a model of social change: Researching crowds and power. Journal of Social Issues, 65(4), 707–725.
7.
FeddesA. R.HuijzerA.van OoijenI.DoosjeB. (2019). Fortress of democracy: Engaging youngsters in democracy results in more support for the political system. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 25(2), 158–164.
8.
Gøtzsche-AstrupO. (2018). The time for causal designs: Review and evaluation of empirical support for mechanisms of political radicalisation. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 39, 90–99.
9.
GulliverR.FieldingK. S.LouisW. R. (2021). Assessing the mobilization potential of environmental advocacy communication. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 74, 101563.
10.
HornseyM. J.BlackwoodL.LouisW.FieldingK.MavorK.MortonT.O’BrienA.PaasonenK.-E.SmithJ.WhiteK. M. (2006). Why do people engage in collective action? Revisiting the role of perceived effectiveness. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(7), 1701–1722.
11.
JonesS. G.LibickiM. C. (2008). How terrorist groups end: Lessons for countering al Qa’ida (Vol. 741). Rand Corporation.
12.
KlandermansB. (1984). Mobilization and participation: Social-psychological expansions of resource mobilization theory. American Sociological Review, 49, 583–600.
13.
KruglanskiA. W.BélangerJ. J.GunaratnaR. (2019). The three pillars of radicalization: Needs, narratives, and networks. Oxford University Press.
14.
Lizzio-WilsonM.ThomasE. F.LouisW. R.WilcocksonB.AmiotC. E.MoghaddamF.McGartyC. (2021). How collective action failure shapes group heterogeneity and engagement in convetional and radical action over time. Psychological Science, 32(4), 519–535.
15.
LouisW.ThomasE.McGartyC.Lizzio-WilsonM.AmiotC.MoghaddamF. (2020). The volatility of collective action: Theoretical analysis and empirical data. Political Psychology, 41, 35–74.
16.
LouisW. R. (2009). Collective action—and then what?Journal of Social Issues, 65(4), 727–748.
17.
LouisW. R.McGartyC.ThomasE. F.AmiotC. E.MoghaddamF. M. (2018). The power of norms to sway fused group members. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 41, e209.
18.
MoghaddamF. M. (2013). The psychology of dictatorship. American Psychological Association.
19.
MoghaddamF. M. (2016). The psychology of democracy. American Psychological Association.
20.
MoghaddamF. M. (2018). Mutual radicalization: How groups and nations drive each other to extremes. American Psychological Association.
21.
MoghaddamF. M. (2019). Threat to democracy: The appeal of authoritarianism in an age of uncertainty. American Psychological Association.
22.
PrattD. (2015). Islamophobia as reactive co-radicalization. Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations, 26(2), 205–218.
23.
RheeJ. J.ScheinC.BastianB. (2019). The what, how, and why of moralization: A review of current definitions, methods, and evidence in moralization research. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 13(12), e12511.
24.
SimmonsJ.NelsonL.SimonsohnU. (2012). A 21 word solution. SSRN.
25.
SkitkaL. J.BaumanC. W. (2008). Moral conviction and political engagement. Political Psychology, 29(1), 29–54.
26.
SkitkaL. J.MullenE. (2002). The dark side of moral conviction. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 2(1), 35–41.
27.
SmithL. G.BlackwoodL.ThomasE. F. (2020). The need to refocus on the group as the site of radicalization. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(2), 327–352.
28.
SmithL. G.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(5), 543–557.
29.
StaggenborgS. (1998). Social movement communities and cycles of protest: The emergence and maintenance of a local women’s movement. Social Problems, 45(2), 180–204.
30.
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.
31.
ThomasE. F.LouisW. R. (2013). Doing democracy: The social psychological mobilization and consequences of collective action. Social Issues and Policy Review, 7(1), 173–200.
32.
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(1), 75–88.
33.
ThomasE. F.McGartyC.LouisW. (2014). Social interaction and psychological pathways to political engagement and extremism. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44(1), 15–22.
34.
Van ZomerenM.PostmesT.SpearsR.BettacheK. (2011). Can moral convictions motivate the advantaged to challenge social inequality? Extending the social identity model of collective action. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14(5), 735–753.
35.
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(1), 122–160.
36.
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.
37.
VestergrenS.DruryJ.ChiriacE. H. (2018). How collective action produces psychological change and how that change endures over time: A case study of an environmental campaign. British Journal of Social Psychology, 57(4), 855–877.
38.
ViechtbauerW. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36(3), 1–48.
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.
