Dynamic,Yet Stable: Separating Within- and Between-Person Components of Collective Action in Support of a Disadvantaged Outgroup and its Antecedents

Abstract

Despite an increasing interest in the drivers of intergroup solidarity, the within-person longitudinal relationships between advantaged group members’ engagement for disadvantaged groups and its postulated antecedents remain scarcely tested. In the context of the refugee crisis following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, we conducted a three-wave longitudinal survey (N_T1 = 804, N_T2 = 702, and N_T3 = 624) assessing Poles’ (the advantaged group) willingness to act for Ukrainians (the disadvantaged group), together with three hypothesized predictors—moral convictions, intergroup contact, and politicized identity. Employing a random intercept cross-lagged panel model that separates between- from within-person variance, we found that within-person changes in moral convictions and friendship contact directly predicted subsequent action intentions. Contrary to past theorizing, politicized identity emerged as consequence rather than an antecedent of collective action. Superficial intergroup contact indirectly predicted engagement intentions by facilitating cross-group friendship. We discuss the implications of our findings for current models of collective action.

Keywords

collective action for a disadvantaged group politicized identity moral convictions intergroup contact longitudinal methodology

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Agostini

van Zomeren

(2021). Toward a comprehensive and potentially cross-cultural model of why people engage in collective action: A quantitative research synthesis of four motivations and structural constraints. Psychological Bulletin, 147(7), 667–700. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000256

Andersen

E. A.

Jennings

M. K.

(2010). Exploring multi-issue activism. PS: Political Science & Politics, 43(1), 63–67. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096510990604

Becker

J. C.

Tausch

(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. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2015.1094265

Becker

J. C.

Tausch

Spears

Christ

(2011). Committed dis (s) idents: Participation in radical collective action fosters disidentification with the broader in-group but enhances political identification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(8), 1104–1116. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211407076

Besta

Pastwa-Wojciechowska

Jaśkiewicz

Piotrowski

Szulc

(2021). Radicalisation and individual differences: Disinhibition, boldness and meanness as predictors of support for radical collective action. Personality and Individual Differences, 168, Article 110354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110354

Bilewicz

Bukowski

Cichocka

Winiewski

Wójcik

(2009). Uprzedzenia etniczne w Polsce. Raport z ogólnopolskiego sonda u Polish Prejudice Survey 2009 [Ethnic prejudice in Poland: A report on the national Polish Prejudice Survey 2009] (Project report). University of Warsaw.

Brzozowski

(2022). Polish city creates “green corridor” for aid to Ukraine. Euractive. https://www.euractiv.com/section/europe-s-east/news/polish-city-creates-green-corridor-for-aid-to-ukraine/

Cakal

Halabi

Cazan

A. M.

Eller

(2021). Intergroup contact and endorsement of social change motivations: The mediating role of intergroup trust, perspective-taking, and intergroup anxiety among three advantaged groups in Northern Cyprus, Romania, and Israel. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 24(1), 48–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430219885163

Cole

D. A.

Maxwell

S. E.

(2003). Testing mediational models with longitudinal data: Questions and tips in the use of structural equation modeling. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112(4), 558–577. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.112.4.558

10.

Davies

Tropp

L. R.

Aron

Pettigrew

T. F.

Wright

S. C.

(2011). Cross-group friendships and intergroup attitudes: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15(4), 332–351. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868311411103

11.

Derewienko

(2022). Ilu uchodźców z Ukrainy jest w Polsce? [How many Ukrainian refugees are there in Poland?]. https://300gospodarka.pl/news/uchodzcy-z-ukrainy-w-polsce-liczba

12.

Drury

Reicher

(2009). Collective psychological empowerment as a model of social change: Researching crowds and power. Journal of Social Issues, 65(4), 707–725. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2009.01622.x

13.

Glick

(2005). Choice of scapegoats In Dovidio

J. F.

Glick

Rudman

L. A.

et al. (Eds.), On the nature of prejudice: Fifty years after Allport (pp. 244–261). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470773963.ch15

14.

Górska

Stefaniak

Malinowska

Lipowska

Marchlewska

Budziszewska

Maciantowicz

(2020). Too great to act in solidarity: The negative relationship between collective narcissism and solidarity-based collective action. European Journal of Social Psychology, 50(3), 561–578. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2638

15.

Górska

Stefaniak

Marchlewska

Matera

Kocyba

Łukianow

Malinowska

Lipowska

(2022). Refugees unwelcome: Narcissistic and secure national commitment differentially predict collective action against immigrants and refugees. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 86, 258–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2021.11.009

16.

Hamaker

E. L.

Kuiper

R. M.

Grasman

R. P.

(2015). A critique of the cross-lagged panel model. Psychological Methods, 20(1), 102–116. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038889

17.

Hässler

Ullrich

Bernardino

Shnabel

Laar

C. V.

Valdenegro

Ugarte

L. M.

(2020). A large-scale test of the link between intergroup contact and support for social change. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(4), 380–386. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0815-z

18.

Hässler

Ullrich

Sebben

Shnabel

Bernardino

Valdenegro

Pistella

(2022). Need satisfaction in intergroup contact: A multinational study of pathways toward social change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 22(4), 634–658. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000365

19.

L. T.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

20.

Kende

Lantos

N. A.

Belinszky

Csaba

Lukács

Z. A.

(2017). The politicized motivations of volunteers in the refugee crisis: Intergroup helping as the means to achieve social change. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 5(1), 260–281. https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.v5i1.642

21.

Louis

Thomas

McGarty

Lizzio-Wilson

Amiot

Moghaddam

(2020). The volatility of collective action: Theoretical analysis and empirical data. Political Psychology, 41, 35–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12671

22.

Louis

W. R.

Amiot

C. E.

Thomas

E. F.

Blackwood

(2016). The “activist identity” and activism across domains: A multiple identities analysis. Journal of Social Issues, 72(2), 242–263. http://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12165

23.

Lucas

R. E.

(2022). Time to abandon the cross lagged panel model. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/pkec7

24.

Lüdtke

Robitzsch

(2021). A critique of the random intercept cross-lagged panel model [Preprint]. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/6f85c

25.

Lytle

Dyar

Levy

S. R.

London

(2017). Essentialist beliefs: Understanding contact with and attitudes towards lesbian and gay individuals. British Journal of Social Psychology, 56(1), 64–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12154

26.

MacInnis

C. C.

Hodson

(2019). Extending the benefits of intergroup contact beyond attitudes: When does intergroup contact predict greater collective action support? Journal of Theoretical Social Psychology, 3(1), 11–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts5.23

27.

MacInnis

C. C.

Page-Gould

(2015). How can intergroup interaction be bad if intergroup contact is good? Exploring and reconciling an apparent paradox in the science of intergroup relations. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(3), 307–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614568482

28.

Mallett

R. K.

Huntsinger

J. R.

Sinclair

Swim

J. K.

(2008). Seeing through their eyes: When majority group members take collective action on behalf of an outgroup. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 11(4), 451–470. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430208095400

29.

Mondak

J. J.

Hibbing

M. V.

Canache

Seligson

M. A.

Anderson

M. R.

(2010). Personality and civic engagement: An integrative framework for the study of trait effects on political behavior. American Political Science Review, 104(1), 85–110. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055409990359

30.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(1998–2017). Mplus user’s guide (8th ed.).

31.

Orth

Clark

D. A.

Donnellan

M. B.

Robins

R. W.

(2021). Testing prospective effects in longitudinal research: Comparing seven competing cross-lagged models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120(4), 1013–1034. http://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000358

32.

Osborne

Satherley

Little

T. D.

Sibley

C. G.

(2021). Authoritarianism and social dominance predict annual increases in generalized prejudice. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 12(7), 1136–1145. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550620969608

33.

Page-Gould

Harris

MacInnis

C. C.

Danyluck

C. M.

Miller

I. D.

(2022). The intergroup perspective on cross-group friendship. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 65, 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2021.10.001

34.

Petriczko

(2022). For this border crisis, Poles extend a warm welcome, unlike last time New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/08/world/europe/ukraine-refugees-poland-russia.html

35.

Pettigrew

T. F.

Tropp

L. R.

(2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751–783. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751

36.

Radke

H. R.

Kutlaca

Siem

Wright

S. C.

Becker

J. C.

(2020). Beyond allyship: Motivations for advantaged group members to engage in action for disadvantaged groups. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 24(4), 291–315. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868320918698

37.

Reimer

N. K.

Becker

J. C.

Benz

Christ

Dhont

Klocke

Hewstone

(2017). Intergroup contact and social change: Implications of negative and positive contact for collective action in advantaged and disadvantaged groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(1), 121–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216676478

38.

Rohrer

J. M.

Murayama

(2021). These are not the effects you are looking for: Causality and the within-/between-person distinction in longitudinal data analysis [Preprint]. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/tg4vj

39.

Saab

Tausch

Spears

Cheung

W. Y.

(2015). Acting in solidarity: Testing an extended dual pathway model of collective action by bystander group members. British Journal of Social Psychology, 54(3), 539–560. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12095

40.

Selvanathan

H. P.

Techakesari

Tropp

L. R.

Barlow

F. K.

(2018). Whites for racial justice: How contact with Black Americans predicts support for collective action among White Americans. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 21(6), 893–912. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430217690908

41.

Sengupta

N. K.

Reimer

N. K.

Sibley

C. G.

Barlow

(2022). Does intergroup contact foster solidarity with the disadvantaged? A longitudinal analysis across seven years [Preprint]. https://psyarxiv.com/c6r29/

42.

Simon

Klandermans

(2001). Politicized collective identity: A social psychological analysis. American Psychologist, 56(4), 319–331. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.56.4.319

43.

Skitka

L. J.

(2010). The psychology of moral conviction. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(4), 267–281. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00254.x

44.

Stefaniak

Winiewski

(Eds.) (2018). Uprzedzenia w Polsce 2017. Oblicza przemocy międzygrupowej [Prejudice in Poland. 2017 The shades of intergroup violence]. Liberi Libri.

45.

Tausch

Becker

J. 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.2012.02109.x

46.

Thomas

E. F.

Mavor

K. I.

McGarty

(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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430211413619

47.

Thomas

E. F.

McGarty

Louis

W. R.

Wenzel

Bury

Woodyatt

(2021). It’s about time! identifying and explaining unique trajectories of solidarity-based collective action to support people in developing countries. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 48, 1451–1464. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672211047083

48.

Thomas

E. F.

McGarty

Mavor

K. 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

49.

Thomas

E. F.

Zubielevitch

Sibley

C. G.

Osborne

(2020). Testing the social identity model of collective action longitudinally and across structurally disadvantaged and advantaged groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46(6), 823–838. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167219879111

50.

Usami

Murayama

Hamaker

E. L.

(2019). A unified framework of longitudinal models to examine reciprocal relations. Psychological Methods, 24(5), 637–657. http://doi.org/10.1037/met0000210

51.

Van Zomeren

Kutlaca

Turner-Zwinkels

(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. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2018.1479347

52.

Van Zomeren

Leach

C. W.

Spears

(2012). Protesters as “passionate economists” a dynamic dual pathway model of approach coping with collective disadvantage. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16(2), 180–199. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868311430835

53.

Van Zomeren

Postmes

Spears

(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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.504

54.

Van Zomeren

Postmes

Spears

(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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.2010.02000.x

55.

Waddell

J. T.

King

S. E.

Corbin

W. R.

(2022). Dynamic longitudinal relations among solitary drinking, coping motives, & alcohol problems during emerging adulthood. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 238, Article 109576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2022.109576

56.

Selig

J. P.

Little

T. D.

(2013). Longitudinal data analysis. In Little

T. D.

(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of quantitative methods: Vol. 2. Statistical analysis (pp. 387–410). Oxford University Press.

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.

0.00 MB

0.55 MB