Collective Action and Social Change Flashcards
1
Q
Social change
A
- Social change refers to the ways in which a society develops over time to replace beliefs, attitudes, and behaviour with new norms and expectations.
- It is modification of the existing societal order of a society.
- Social inequalities and discontent are inherently related to social change.
2
Q
Inequality perspectives
A
- Relative Deprivation (Stouffer et al., 1966; Walker & Smith, 2002): Perception of having less than oneself or ingroup should have
- Distributive Injustice: Perception of having less than one is entitled to
- Procedural Injustice (Tyler & Lind, 1992; Tyler & Smith, 1998): Perception of being a victim of unfair laws, procedures
- Violation of Important Moral Standards (Van Zomeren et al., 2011)
3
Q
Collective action
A
- Form of political protest.
- It is any action to improve the status of an entire group rather than a few members of that group (Van Zomeren & Iyer, 2009).
- It is any action that promotes the interests of one’s ingroup or is conducted in political solidarity (Becker, 2012).
4
Q
Collective action classification
A
-
Normative collective action: conforms to the norms of the existing social system
- Protests, demonstrations
- Everyday activism
- Signing a petition
- Strikes
- Sit-ins
-
Non-normative collective action: violates the norms of the existing social system
- Riots
- Vandalism
- Terrorism
5
Q
Social Identity Model of Collective Action (SIMCA)
A
- Van Zomeren et al., 2008
- Explains why people engage in CA
- 3 parts to the model: injustice, identification and efficacy:
- Injustice: increases people’s likelihood to protest
- Identification: When we identify with a formal social movement, that predicts our participation in CA
- Efficacy: People are more likely to engage in CA if there is a possibility to act
- Linked to Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979)
6
Q
Studies of injustice
A
- Bernburg, 2015: Likelihood of protests in Iceland positively related to Relative Economic Loss following financial crisis
- Asingo, 2008: Relative Deprivation and likelihood of voting and protest participation in Kenya
- Chen et al., 2018: Relative Deprivation and the intention to rebel in China
7
Q
Studies of identification
A
- Stuermer & Simon, 2004: Identification with a formal social movement organization (German gay movement) predicted participation in collective action.
- Cakal et al., 2011: Black South Africans’ racial identification and collective action intentions.
- Duncan, 2012: Feminist identification and feminist collective action.
- Thomas et al., 2010: Identification with opinion group and willingness to act among students.
8
Q
Studies of efficacy
A
- Martin et al., 1984: Study on pay levels at California Oil Company (Cal Oil), 90 female workers (disadvantaged group). Collective action intentions are strongest when there is a possibility to act (efficacy).
- Mummendey et al., 1999: East Germans and the Germany Unification
- Tausch & Becker, 2013: Students’ participation in protests
9
Q
Variants to SIMCA
A
- Role of morality:
- Violation of individuals’ moral standards leads to CA
- Subjectively absolute – zero tolerance, context independent (Mullen & Skitka, 2006)
- Role of hope:
- Group efficacy induced collective action intentions only when hope was high (Cohen-Chen & Van Zomeren, 2018).
- When hope was low, group efficacy had no effect on collective action intentions.
- Role of anger and contempt (Tausch et al., 2011):
- Anger increases likelihood of NORMATIVE CA
- Contempt increases likelihood of NON-NORMATIVE CA
10
Q
Barriers to CA
A
-
Socio-Structural Barriers
- Favourable political opportunity structure (Klandermans, 1997)
-
Psychological Barriers
- Perceived stability and the legitimacy of the social arrangements (Ellemers, 1993)
- Individual upward mobility (leaving the group), (Ellemers, 2001)
- Social creativity (Becker, 2012; Galinsky et al., 2003) e.g. we may not be rich but at least we have jobs
- Alternative affective loyalties (e.g., when members of the disadvantaged groups have close personal contact with members of the advantaged group), (Jackman, 1994)
11
Q
Intergroup contact
A
- Contact hypothesis (Allport, 1954; Brown & Hewstone, 2005): in order to improve intergroup relations, simple contact is not sufficient, it has to ‘optimal’
- Equal status contact - e.g., equal members of a team
- Co-operative interaction – e.g., students working on a group project
- Common goals – e.g., members of a sport team
- Support of authorities – e.g., laws supporting desegregation/equality
- Interpersonal contact as a way to reduce prejudice between majority and minority group members (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006)
- Intergroup contact has a positive effect on attitudes but it does not always decrease discrimination.
12
Q
Intergroup contact process
A
- Expectations of rejection as well as fears about the interaction partner behaviours can create anxiety (Stephan & Stephan, 1985).
- Anxiety is related to expectations that out-group members are typical individuals of their group.
- Anxiety decreases the likelihood of contact.
- However, contact decreases this intergroup anxiety (Voci & Hewstone, 2003).
13
Q
Intergroup contact outcomes
A
- Contact changes the perception of the out-group.
- Contact challenges the out-group homogeneity effect (all members of the out-group are the same).
- Contact allows individual to know the outgroup better.
- Contact reduces both affective and cognitive forms of prejudice (Tropp & Pettigrew, 2005)
14
Q
Types of intergroup contact
A
15
Q
Direct contact
A
- Herek & Capitanio, 1996 showed that attitude towads homosexuals improved following contact with them
- Number/closeness of relationships and disclosure positively impacts social change
- Pros:
- Personal experience
- Emotions and beliefs experienced as an active participant
- Potential link to other personal contacts
- Can be communicated to others
- Cons:
- It has to be positive to induce prejudice reactions
- It is not always possible
