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 (NT1 = 804, NT2 = 702, and NT3 = 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.
AgostiniM.van ZomerenM. (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
BeckerJ. C.TauschN. (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
4.
BeckerJ. C.TauschN.SpearsR.ChristO. (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
5.
BestaT.Pastwa-WojciechowskaB.JaśkiewiczM.PiotrowskiA.SzulcM. (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
6.
BilewiczM.BukowskiM.CichockaA.WiniewskiM.WójcikA. (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.
CakalH.HalabiS.CazanA. M.EllerA. (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
9.
ColeD. A.MaxwellS. 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.
DaviesK.TroppL. R.AronA.PettigrewT. F.WrightS. 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
DruryJ.ReicherS. (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.
GlickP. (2005). Choice of scapegoats In DovidioJ. F.GlickP.RudmanL. 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.
GórskaP.StefaniakA.MalinowskaK.LipowskaK.MarchlewskaM.BudziszewskaM.MaciantowiczO. (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.
GórskaP.StefaniakA.MarchlewskaM.MateraJ.KocybaP.ŁukianowM.MalinowskaK.LipowskaK. (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.
HamakerE. L.KuiperR. M.GrasmanR. P. (2015). A critique of the cross-lagged panel model. Psychological Methods, 20(1), 102–116. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038889
17.
HässlerT.UllrichJ.BernardinoM.ShnabelN.LaarC. V.ValdenegroD.UgarteL. 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.
HässlerT.UllrichJ.SebbenS.ShnabelN.BernardinoM.ValdenegroD.PistellaJ. (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.
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), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
20.
KendeA.LantosN. A.BelinszkyA.CsabaS.LukácsZ. 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.
LouisW.ThomasE.McGartyC.Lizzio-WilsonM.AmiotC.MoghaddamF. (2020). The volatility of collective action: Theoretical analysis and empirical data. Political Psychology, 41, 35–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12671
22.
LouisW. R.AmiotC. E.ThomasE. F.BlackwoodL. (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
LytleA.DyarC.LevyS. R.LondonB. (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.
MacInnisC. C.HodsonG. (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.
MacInnisC. C.Page-GouldE. (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.
MallettR. K.HuntsingerJ. R.SinclairS.SwimJ. 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.
MondakJ. J.HibbingM. V.CanacheD.SeligsonM. A.AndersonM. 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.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (1998–2017). Mplus user’s guide (8th ed.).
31.
OrthU.ClarkD. A.DonnellanM. B.RobinsR. 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.
OsborneD.SatherleyN.LittleT. D.SibleyC. 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-GouldE.HarrisK.MacInnisC. C.DanyluckC. M.MillerI. 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
PettigrewT. F.TroppL. 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.
RadkeH. R.KutlacaM.SiemB.WrightS. C.BeckerJ. 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.
ReimerN. K.BeckerJ. C.BenzA.ChristO.DhontK.KlockeU.HewstoneM. (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.
RohrerJ. M.MurayamaK. (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.
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(3), 539–560. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12095
40.
SelvanathanH. P.TechakesariP.TroppL. R.BarlowF. 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.
SenguptaN. K.ReimerN. K.SibleyC. G.BarlowF. (2022). Does intergroup contact foster solidarity with the disadvantaged? A longitudinal analysis across seven years [Preprint]. https://psyarxiv.com/c6r29/
42.
SimonB.KlandermansB. (2001). Politicized collective identity: A social psychological analysis. American Psychologist, 56(4), 319–331. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.56.4.319
StefaniakA.WiniewskiM. (Eds.) (2018). Uprzedzenia w Polsce 2017. Oblicza przemocy międzygrupowej [Prejudice in Poland. 2017 The shades of intergroup violence]. Liberi Libri.
45.
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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.2012.02109.x
46.
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430211413619
47.
ThomasE. F.McGartyC.LouisW. R.WenzelM.BuryS.WoodyattL. (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.
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
49.
ThomasE. F.ZubielevitchE.SibleyC. G.OsborneD. (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.
UsamiS.MurayamaK.HamakerE. 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 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2018.1479347
52.
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(2), 180–199. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868311430835
53.
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), 504–535. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.504
54.
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(1), 52–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.2010.02000.x
55.
WaddellJ. T.KingS. E.CorbinW. 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.
WuW.SeligJ. P.LittleT. D. (2013). Longitudinal data analysis. In LittleT. 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.
