11

Emotion and Efficacy Pathways Emotion and Efficacy Pathways to Normative and Non-to Normative and Non-

normative Collective Action normative Collective Action

Nicole TauschNicole Tausch

Cardiff UniversityCardiff University

EASP Small Group Meeting on Resolving Societal Conflicts and Building Peace: Socio-Psychological Dynamics, 7-10 September, 2009, Jerusalem, Israel

22

Types of Collective ActionTypes of Collective Action Normative vs. Non-normativeNormative vs. Non-normative (e.g., Wright, (e.g., Wright,

2001; Wright et al., 1990)2001; Wright et al., 1990) Normative action: conforms to the norms of the Normative action: conforms to the norms of the

existing social systemexisting social system (e.g., political participation, (e.g., political participation, peaceful demonstrations)peaceful demonstrations)

Non-normative action: violates these rules, often illegal Non-normative action: violates these rules, often illegal (e.g., sabotage, violence, terrorism)(e.g., sabotage, violence, terrorism)

But: doesn’t mean that these are non-normative for certain But: doesn’t mean that these are non-normative for certain subgroups!subgroups!

Constitutional vs. Extra-constitutionalConstitutional vs. Extra-constitutional (e.g., Hayes & McAllister, 2001)(e.g., Hayes & McAllister, 2001)

IRA (Northern Ireland): ‘ArmaLite and the ballot box’ strategies IRA (Northern Ireland): ‘ArmaLite and the ballot box’ strategies

Legitimate vs. illegitimateLegitimate vs. illegitimate action action (Martin et al., (Martin et al., 1984)1984)

Legal vs. IllegalLegal vs. Illegal Constructive vs. destructiveConstructive vs. destructive action action (Dion, (Dion,

1986; Scheepers et al., 2006)1986; Scheepers et al., 2006)

33

Research QuestionsResearch Questions

Cycle of violence hinders building trust and Cycle of violence hinders building trust and resolution of conflict (e.g., Northern Ireland)resolution of conflict (e.g., Northern Ireland)

Understanding and addressing factors predictive Understanding and addressing factors predictive of (support for) violence important part of conflict of (support for) violence important part of conflict resolution; first stepresolution; first step

What are the predictors of non-normative What are the predictors of non-normative actions (vs. normative)? actions (vs. normative)? Emotions: anger & contempt Emotions: anger & contempt Group efficacyGroup efficacy

44

Focus: normative actionFocus: normative action Collective action: arises from complex Collective action: arises from complex

interactions of structural conditions and interactions of structural conditions and psychological processespsychological processes (Wright, 2001)(Wright, 2001)

In-group disadvantageIn-group disadvantage Structural or situation/event-basedStructural or situation/event-based

Illegitimacy Illegitimacy (SIT, Tajfel & Turner, 1979, 1986; RDT, e.g., Crosby, (SIT, Tajfel & Turner, 1979, 1986; RDT, e.g., Crosby, 1976) 1976) Sense of injustice of disadvantageSense of injustice of disadvantage

Emotion-based analyses (RDT/IET):Emotion-based analyses (RDT/IET): Appraisals lead to action tendencies because they Appraisals lead to action tendencies because they

arouse discrete emotions, such as angerarouse discrete emotions, such as anger (Mackie et al., (Mackie et al., 2000; Smith, 1993; Smith & Oritz, 2002)2000; Smith, 1993; Smith & Oritz, 2002)

What motivates collective What motivates collective action?action?

55

Group efficacy Group efficacy (McCarthy & Zald, 1977; Martin et al., (McCarthy & Zald, 1977; Martin et al., 1984)1984) Belief that group can solve their group-related Belief that group can solve their group-related

problem by unified effort problem by unified effort (Bandura, 1995)(Bandura, 1995)

Related to notion of (in)stability of in-group Related to notion of (in)stability of in-group disadvantage in SITdisadvantage in SIT

Pragmatic considerationPragmatic consideration Dual Pathway Model Dual Pathway Model (Van Zomeren, Spears & (Van Zomeren, Spears &

Leach, 2004)Leach, 2004) Group-based anger and group efficacy as Group-based anger and group efficacy as

distinct routes to collective actiondistinct routes to collective action But only normative actions examinedBut only normative actions examined Less clear when group members will resort to Less clear when group members will resort to

non-normative actionnon-normative action

Group EfficacyGroup Efficacy

66

NormativeCollective Action

Tendencies

Non-normativeCollective Action

Tendencies

Appraisals Emotions Action Tendencies

Group Efficacy

+

_

77

Resort to more extreme measures Resort to more extreme measures when situation hopelesswhen situation hopeless

Stable low status of the in-group leads Stable low status of the in-group leads to more extreme forms of bias to more extreme forms of bias (outgroup derogation) (outgroup derogation) (Scheepers et al., 2006)(Scheepers et al., 2006)

Non-normative action when legitimate Non-normative action when legitimate channels closed channels closed (Wright et al., 1990) (Wright et al., 1990)

Group Efficacy and Normative vs. Group Efficacy and Normative vs. Non-normative Collective ActionNon-normative Collective Action

88

NormativeCollective Action

Tendencies

Non-normativeCollective Action

Tendencies

Anger

Appraisals Emotions Action Tendencies

Group Efficacy

++

+

Injustice++

99

AngerAnger Constructive emotion Constructive emotion (Fischer & Roseman, 2007)(Fischer & Roseman, 2007)

Involves certain amount of control, greater Involves certain amount of control, greater intimacy, less dispositional attributionsintimacy, less dispositional attributions

Positive outcome sought by coercing change Positive outcome sought by coercing change in another person’s behaviourin another person’s behaviour

Hostile and antagonistic behaviours; but Hostile and antagonistic behaviours; but reconciliation in the long termreconciliation in the long term

1010

ContemptContempt ‘‘Other-critical’ emotion like angerOther-critical’ emotion like anger (Rozin, (Rozin,

Lowery, Imada, & Haidt, 1999)Lowery, Imada, & Haidt, 1999)

Distinct social functions and Distinct social functions and consequencesconsequences (Fischer & Roseman, 2007)(Fischer & Roseman, 2007)

Often arises when anger is recurrent and Often arises when anger is recurrent and remains unresolved (develops on top of remains unresolved (develops on top of anger)anger) Lack of control over the other person, less intimacyLack of control over the other person, less intimacy When no reconciliation is sought When no reconciliation is sought Negative and permanent changes in beliefs about Negative and permanent changes in beliefs about

another person (dispositional attributions)another person (dispositional attributions) Less constructive for social relationshipsLess constructive for social relationships Dehumanization and moral exclusion of others Dehumanization and moral exclusion of others

(Leyens et al.,2000)(Leyens et al.,2000) Feeling (morally) superior to othersFeeling (morally) superior to others

1111

Moral AppraisalsMoral Appraisals Group morality important for in-group Group morality important for in-group

evaluation evaluation (Leach et al., 2007)(Leach et al., 2007)

Intergroup conflict often has symbolic Intergroup conflict often has symbolic elementselements discrepancies in beliefs, values, and moral codes discrepancies in beliefs, values, and moral codes

strongly predict hostility towards the out-groupstrongly predict hostility towards the out-group (e.g., Biernat et al., 1996; Esses et al., 1993; Sears, 1988)(e.g., Biernat et al., 1996; Esses et al., 1993; Sears, 1988)

Beliefs of the moral superiority of the in-Beliefs of the moral superiority of the in-group (‘ingroup virtue’ group (‘ingroup virtue’ Reicher, Haslam, & Rath, 2008)Reicher, Haslam, & Rath, 2008) and the immorality of the out-group can and the immorality of the out-group can serve to justify actionserve to justify action (e.g., Tetlock, 2002)(e.g., Tetlock, 2002)

Strong link to contempt felt toward an Strong link to contempt felt toward an opponent opponent (e.g., Fischer & Roseman, 2007)(e.g., Fischer & Roseman, 2007)

1212

NormativeCollective Action

Tendencies

Non-normativeCollective Action

Tendencies

Anger

Contempt

Appraisals Emotions Action Tendencies

Group Efficacy

++

+

Injustice

Moral Appraisals

++

+

1313

Study 1: Study 1: British students willingness to British students willingness to

engage in solidarity-based engage in solidarity-based collective action for change in collective action for change in treatment of asylum seekerstreatment of asylum seekers

(Basic model)(Basic model)

1414

Procedure & RespondentsProcedure & Respondents Online study, Cardiff UniversityOnline study, Cardiff University Link sent out to participant panel and Link sent out to participant panel and

activist groups mailing listsactivist groups mailing lists Sample: N=185Sample: N=185

81 female81 female Mean age = 20.16 (SD=2.62)Mean age = 20.16 (SD=2.62)

Read a fictitious story about the Read a fictitious story about the negative treatment of an asylum negative treatment of an asylum seeker in the UKseeker in the UK

1515

MeasuresMeasures Injustice perceptions Injustice perceptions (α = .88)(α = .88)

To what extent do you consider the To what extent do you consider the treatment of asylum seekers in this country treatment of asylum seekers in this country to be to be just/fair/legitimatejust/fair/legitimate?’?’

Anger Anger (α = .81)(α = .81) To what extent do you feel To what extent do you feel

angry/furious/resentfulangry/furious/resentful when thinking about when thinking about the treatment of asylum seekers in the UK?the treatment of asylum seekers in the UK?

Efficacy Efficacy (‘I think that, as a group, people (‘I think that, as a group, people campaigning for a better treatment of asylum seekers campaigning for a better treatment of asylum seekers are able to improve the situation of asylum seekers in are able to improve the situation of asylum seekers in this country.’)this country.’)

1616

Measures – ActionsMeasures – Actions People have in the past taken a wide variety People have in the past taken a wide variety

of actions in order to achieve their political of actions in order to achieve their political goals. To what extent would you goals. To what extent would you approve of approve of the following actionsthe following actions aimed at improving aimed at improving the treatment of asylum seekers in this the treatment of asylum seekers in this country?country?

How How willingwilling would you be to would you be to engage in the engage in the following actionsfollowing actions to improve the treatment to improve the treatment of asylum seekers in this country?of asylum seekers in this country?

Scale: 9-point Likert (not at all, extremely)Scale: 9-point Likert (not at all, extremely)

1717

PCA (oblique rotation)PCA (oblique rotation) Sign petitionSign petition Donate to charitiesDonate to charities Attend meetings of groups campaigning for a change in policyAttend meetings of groups campaigning for a change in policy Write letters to MPsWrite letters to MPs Hand out information leaflets about the causeHand out information leaflets about the cause Participate in peaceful protestParticipate in peaceful protest

Block a building entranceBlock a building entrance Block a roadBlock a road

Sabotage, such as deleting files that contain details of failed Sabotage, such as deleting files that contain details of failed asylum seekers destined for deportationasylum seekers destined for deportation

Trespass into an asylum seeker detention centreTrespass into an asylum seeker detention centre

Blackmail officials (e.g., government lawyers arguing for asylum Blackmail officials (e.g., government lawyers arguing for asylum seekers deportation)seekers deportation)

Participate in violent protest (i.e., that includes vandalism and Participate in violent protest (i.e., that includes vandalism and setting fires)setting fires)

Damage government buildings (e.g., break windows, smash down Damage government buildings (e.g., break windows, smash down doors)doors)

Set fire to government buildingsSet fire to government buildings

Normative (Constitutional Protest)

Non-normative, non-violent

Non-normative, violent

1818

NormativeAction

Non-normativeaction, non-violent

AngerInjustice

Appraisals Emotions Action Tendencies

Group Efficacy

.64***

Non-normativeaction, non-violent

.44***

.21**-.10

.31**

-.16*

1919

Study 2: Protest against Study 2: Protest against introduction of tuition fees in introduction of tuition fees in

GermanyGermany

Replicate resultsReplicate results Go beyond anger: Contempt as a particularly Go beyond anger: Contempt as a particularly

destructive emotion & moral superiority as destructive emotion & moral superiority as relevant appraisal (Extended model)relevant appraisal (Extended model)

2020

Tuition Fees in GermanyTuition Fees in Germany Federal ‘higher education bill’: tuition fees were Federal ‘higher education bill’: tuition fees were

prohibitedprohibited

2002: several states took legal action, 2002: several states took legal action, education education should be the sole responsibility of the states should be the sole responsibility of the states

2005: ruling that 2005: ruling that a federal law prohibiting tuition fees a federal law prohibiting tuition fees is unconstitutionalis unconstitutional

Introduction of local laws that allowed tuition fees Introduction of local laws that allowed tuition fees (around 500 Euro per semester)(around 500 Euro per semester)

Decisions were met with much opposition by studentsDecisions were met with much opposition by students Difficult to get loansDifficult to get loans Threatens the social welfare stateThreatens the social welfare state

Wave of student protests (2002-2009), still ongoingWave of student protests (2002-2009), still ongoing

2121

2222

Procedure & RespondentsProcedure & Respondents Online study, University of MarburgOnline study, University of Marburg Link sent out to various university email Link sent out to various university email

listslists Sample: N=307 studentsSample: N=307 students

51.8% female51.8% female Mean age = 22.78 (SD=3.40)Mean age = 22.78 (SD=3.40) Wide range of subjects representedWide range of subjects represented

Biology, Business, Chemistry, Ethnology, Philology, Peace Biology, Business, Chemistry, Ethnology, Philology, Peace studies, Geography, German, History, Law, Maths, studies, Geography, German, History, Law, Maths, Physics, Psychology, Education, Theology, Philosophy, Physics, Psychology, Education, Theology, Philosophy,

Medicine, Politics, SociologyMedicine, Politics, Sociology

2323

Measures - AppraisalsMeasures - Appraisals Injustice appraisals Injustice appraisals (α = .86)(α = .86)

The introduction of tuition fees is unfair.The introduction of tuition fees is unfair. Tuition fees are socially unjust.Tuition fees are socially unjust. The introduction of tuition fees is not legitimate.The introduction of tuition fees is not legitimate. The introduction of tuition fees is justified. (-)The introduction of tuition fees is justified. (-)

Moral SuperiorityMoral Superiority ‘‘Members of the protest movement against tuition fees are Members of the protest movement against tuition fees are

morally superior to advocates of the introduction of tuition morally superior to advocates of the introduction of tuition fees.’fees.’

Group Efficacy Group Efficacy (α = .84)(α = .84) I think that students can stop the introduction of tuition fees.I think that students can stop the introduction of tuition fees. I think that students can successfully defend their rights.I think that students can successfully defend their rights. Students are strong as a group and can move a lot.Students are strong as a group and can move a lot. I think students have already lost the fight against tuition I think students have already lost the fight against tuition

fees. (-)fees. (-)

2424

Measures - EmotionsMeasures - Emotions

Anger Anger (α = .93)(α = .93) I’m furious about the planned introduction of I’m furious about the planned introduction of

tuition fees.tuition fees. The introduction of tuition fees angers me.The introduction of tuition fees angers me.

Contempt Contempt (α = .93)(α = .93) I despise people who advocate tuition fees.I despise people who advocate tuition fees. I detest people who advocate tuition fees.I detest people who advocate tuition fees.

2525

Measures – Action Measures – Action tendenciestendencies

Action tendenciesAction tendencies How likely is it that you would participate How likely is it that you would participate

in the following actions against tuition in the following actions against tuition fees in the future? fees in the future? (1 = very unlikely, 7 = (1 = very unlikely, 7 = very likely)very likely)

2626

ActionsActions Discussion meetingsDiscussion meetings Plenary meetingsPlenary meetings Writing flyersWriting flyers Signing a complaint against unconstitutionalitySigning a complaint against unconstitutionality Street theatreStreet theatre DemonstrationsDemonstrations

Boycott tuition feesBoycott tuition fees Go on strikeGo on strike

Disturb eventsDisturb events Block university buildingsBlock university buildings

Block highwayBlock highway Throw stones or bottlesThrow stones or bottles Arson attacks on university buildingsArson attacks on university buildings Arson attacks on private property of responsible persons Arson attacks on private property of responsible persons Attacks on policeAttacks on police Attacks on responsible personsAttacks on responsible persons

Protest

Resistance

Violence

2727

Group Efficacy

Protest

Resistance

Violence

χ2(70) = 141.92***, χ2/df=2.03, CFI = .98, RMSEA = .06 (p-close=.16), SRMR = .03

Anger

Contempt.21***

.80***

.62***

.33***

PerceivedInjustice

.59***

-.17**

.24***

.25***

.35***

.26***

.35***

.41***Moral

Superiority

.48***

.23***

.49***

.09*

2828

DiscussionDiscussion

Further theoretical development in Further theoretical development in order!order!

Two emotional routes to collective Two emotional routes to collective action:action: Injustice appraisals, anger, normative Injustice appraisals, anger, normative

action (like in previous research)action (like in previous research) Moral superiority, contempt, non-Moral superiority, contempt, non-

normative action (chronic ideological normative action (chronic ideological route?)route?)

2929

DiscussionDiscussion Group efficacy predicts both normative and Group efficacy predicts both normative and

non-normative collective actionnon-normative collective action But nature of effect differs for different types But nature of effect differs for different types

of actionof action Consistent with previous lab work Consistent with previous lab work (Wright et al., (Wright et al.,

1991)1991)

Negative relation to violent action (after Negative relation to violent action (after repeated frustration?)repeated frustration?)

Extreme actions in desperate Extreme actions in desperate circumstances!circumstances!

Seems somewhat inconsistent with ‘rational Seems somewhat inconsistent with ‘rational actor model’actor model’

Explore other functions of violence, more Explore other functions of violence, more intermediateintermediate

Influence third partiesInfluence third parties Provoke counter-reaction and expose opponentProvoke counter-reaction and expose opponent RevengeRevenge

3030

Study 3: Study 3: The role of response efficacy in The role of response efficacy in predicting support for violence predicting support for violence

among third partiesamong third parties

How does the effectiveness of violent and non-violent How does the effectiveness of violent and non-violent resistance strategies by Palestinians against Israelis resistance strategies by Palestinians against Israelis

influence the attitudes of third parties toward the use influence the attitudes of third parties toward the use of each strategy?of each strategy?

(Reem Saab)(Reem Saab)

3131

ProcedureProcedure Participants: Participants: Cardiff students (study ongoing)Cardiff students (study ongoing) 15-minute documentary clip about the Israeli 15-minute documentary clip about the Israeli

occupation of Palestinian territories occupation of Palestinian territories Contained the manipulation of effectiveness of peaceful Contained the manipulation of effectiveness of peaceful

and violent action strategies by Palestinians (expert and violent action strategies by Palestinians (expert opinions)opinions)

2x2 design: 2x2 design: Effectiveness of armed struggle (high/low) Effectiveness of armed struggle (high/low) x Effectiveness of non-violent resistance (mass x Effectiveness of non-violent resistance (mass demonstrations, boycott, civil disobedience; high/low).demonstrations, boycott, civil disobedience; high/low).

DVs: DVs: Perceived legitimacy of attacks on Israeli settlers Perceived legitimacy of attacks on Israeli settlers and attacks on Israeli civilians; Support for attacks on and attacks on Israeli civilians; Support for attacks on Israeli soldiers, settlers and civiliansIsraeli soldiers, settlers and civilians

3232

Perceived legitimacy of violent attacks on Perceived legitimacy of violent attacks on settlerssettlers

-5-4-3-2-1012345

Ineffective violence Effective violence

Ineffective non-violence

Effective non-violence

3333

Perceived legitimacy of attacks on civiliansPerceived legitimacy of attacks on civilians

-5-4-3-2-1012345

Ineffective violence Effective violence

Ineffective non-violence

Effective non-violence

3434

Support for attacks on soldiersSupport for attacks on soldiers

-5-4-3-2-1012345

Ineffective violence Effective violence

Ineffective non-violence

Effective non-violence

3535

Support for attacks on settlersSupport for attacks on settlers

-5-4-3-2-1012345

Ineffective violence Effective violence

Ineffective non-violence

Effective non-violence

3636

Support for attacks on civiliansSupport for attacks on civilians

-5-4-3-2-1012345

Ineffective violence Effective violence

Ineffective non-violence

Effective non-violence

3737

DiscussionDiscussion When groups are in a desperate circumstances (nothing to When groups are in a desperate circumstances (nothing to

lose)…lose)… Low perceived group efficacyLow perceived group efficacy Low perceived response efficacy (of non-violence and Low perceived response efficacy (of non-violence and

even violence) even violence) ……then more extreme measures favored (or less opposed)then more extreme measures favored (or less opposed) ‘‘Crushing’ resistance won’t necessarily reduce Crushing’ resistance won’t necessarily reduce

violence, likely to incite even more violence (Pratto violence, likely to incite even more violence (Pratto et al., 2009)et al., 2009)

Increase efficacy Increase efficacy open up legitimate channels for engagementopen up legitimate channels for engagement empowerment of disadvantaged groupsempowerment of disadvantaged groups

Threatening to advantaged groups, reluctant to let Threatening to advantaged groups, reluctant to let go of powergo of power

3838

AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements

Julia Becker, Julia Becker, University of MarburgUniversity of Marburg

Russell Spears, Russell Spears, Cardiff UniversityCardiff University

Oliver Christ, Oliver Christ, University of MarburgUniversity of Marburg

Reem Saab,Reem Saab, Cardiff University Cardiff University