Collective Action II Flashcards
Barriers to perceiving injustice
Discourse/policies that legitimise inequalities or disadvantage in society constitute a barrier to experiencing perceived injustice -> Social creativity (Becker, 2012) -> Benevolent prejudice (Becker & Wright, 2013) -> Stigmatization (Gorska et al., 2017) examining if social creativity can undermine collective action.
Social identity theory
People are motivated to feel good/positive about themselves -> A group member who identifies strongly with the ingroup should be motivated to positively distinguish the ingroup from outgroups on dimensions valued by the perceiver (Tajfel, 1978c) -> But groups vary in their social status/power/prestige: some have high status/power/prestige while others have low status/power/prestige. How do disadvantaged group members (lower power or low status, socially devalued group) acquire a positive social identity? -> Various identity management strategies are available. – Individual mobility – Social creativity – Social competition (collective action).
individual mobility
Individual mobility -> group members can escape, avoid or deny belonging to a disadvantaged (devalued) group and seek to become or pass as members of the advantaged group – The individual self is different from other group members – Individual mobility only addresses the status of the individual but does not change the social status of the whole ingroup. Social creativity -> group members redefine the intergroup comparison by representing the ingroup in positive rather than negative ways.
Compensanting bias
Compare ingroup on a dimension on which the ingroup is superior (e.g., morality to compensate for wealth). 2)Engage in a downward comparison -> compare ingroup with a lower status (instead of a higher status group). 3) re-evaluate the value or attribute of the comparison dimension. Downplay, or reject, the importance of the negative attribute your ingroup is compared on. Overall, social creativity may benefit psychological wellbeing, but it does not improve the position of the ingroup as a whole within the existing system. No structural change in conditions of the ingroup!
Identity management strategies
Social competition -> group members engage in conflict designed to change the status quo through collective effort (e.g. collective action). Unlike individual mobility and social creativity, social competition aims to improve the outcomes of the entire group by changing the conditions of the group.
Becker (2012) study 1
Compensation bias in the context of economic inequality -> N = 63 (community sample in Germany of mixed-gender, identified as middle-class on average) -> Sample approached by students in public places -> Context: Read a text about an increase in social inequality in Germany and upcoming cuts in the social and health system that would affect the middle class but not the wealthy upper class. Two conditions (random assignment): -> Experimental condition: participants compare people like them to the richest 10% of the population on the attribute of warmth. -> Empty control. DV= collective action tendencies against social cuts (likelihood of participating in a demonstration, attending a discussion meeting, attending a rally, distributing flyers, and signing a petition). Participants (mostly middle-class) showed less interest in collective action for more social justice after comparing their group with the richest 10% of the population on warmth (compared to control)!
Becker (2012) study 2
Compensation bias in the context of gender inequality -> N = 58 women (community sample in Germany) (majority were employed) -> Sample approached by students in public places -> Context: Read a text that there have been “big changes in terms of gender equality during the last decades. Although women have been quite successful, there are distinct areas in which they are still disadvantaged. For instance, women only receive 78% of the salary men earn and have poorer chances of promotion in terms of positions that are linked to power (leadership positions, parliaments).” Two conditions (random assignment): -> Experimental condition: participants compare women to men on the attribute of warmth (e.g. warm, unselfish) -> Empty control. DV= collective action tendencies to protest against women’s disadvantages (likelihood of participating in a demonstration, attending a discussion meeting, attending a rally, distributing flyers, and signing a petition). -> Women showed less interest in collective action against gender inequality after comparing women to men on warmth (compared with control)!
Becker(2012) study 3
Downward comparison in the context of economic inequality, N = 74 unemployed persons of mixed gender (community sample in Germany), Sample approached at the local job centre -> Three conditions (random assignment) - downward comparison - upward comparison – Control. Downward comparison condition: “compared with the unemployed in the United States, the unemployed in Germany are better off. Germans get the double amount of financial support, and the health care system is much better for the unemployed in Germany.” -> Upward comparison condition: “compared with the unemployed in Scandinavia, the unemployed in Germany are worse off. Scandinavians get the double amount of financial support, and the health care system is much better for the unemployed in Scandinavia” -> Empty control condition DV = likelihood of engaging in collective action to protest the situation of unemployed Germans. Unemployed in downward comparison were less interested in collective action against unemployment compared to control, Unemployed in upward comparison condition were more interested in collective action against unemployment compared to control.
Becker (2012) study 4
Downward comparison in the context of gender inequality. N = 126 women (study among online users in Germany), half were employed. Three conditions (random assignment) - downward comparison - upward comparison – Control. Context: Read a text that there have been “big changes in terms of gender equality during the last decades. Although women have been quite successful, there are distinct areas in which they are still disadvantaged. For instance, women only receive 78% of the salary men earn and have poorer chances of promotion in terms of positions that are linked to power (leadership positions, parliaments).” -> Downward comparison condition: Women compare the job situation of women today to women’s job situation 50 years ago -> Upward comparison condition: Women compare the job situation of men to women today. -> Empty control. Women comparing their situation with women 50 years ago showed reduced interest in collective action compared to control -> Women comparing their situation with men showed greater interest in collective action compared to control.
what does study 2 and 3 show?
Becker (2012) studies 2 and 3 subsequent studies showed an important mediator is relative deprivation. Concludes overall that some social creativity strategies can undermine collective action by reducing relative deprivation.
Benevolent prejudices
examine if exposure to particular forms of sexism reduces collective action among women. Patriarchy: men’s structural control over economic, legal and political institutions -> The stereotypical image of a sexist man is generally negative, e.g.: – Explicitly belittling women’s competence, intelligence, capacities to play certain roles – Restricting women’s freedom. Jackman (1994): “the agenda for dominant groups is to create an ideological cocoon whereby they can define their discriminatory actions as benevolent”.
Ambivalent sexism theory
In order to maintain male dominance in society it is necessary to: punish women who challenge male dominance (e.g., feminists, career women, sexually liberal women). reward and idealize women who adopt traditional gender roles as and submit to male dominance. Ambivalent sexism theory proposes that there are two kinds of sexism: – Hostile sexism – Benevolent sexism. Hostile sexism -> Hostile sexism: feelings of hostility toward women; negative attitude toward women. Benevolent sexism -> reflects positive feelings toward women, including a prosocial orientation toward women (e.g., the desire to help women). Benevolent sexism is a paternalistic kind of prejudice: Women are weak and in need of protection -> The same qualities of purity, sensitivity and fragility which are used to justify putting women on a pedestal are used to justify why women are not capable and should not have the same rights as men.
Relations between HS and BS
Hostile and benevolent sexism are two sides of the same coin (hence ambivalent sexism) -> Both rooted in patriarchy (i.e., justifying the superiority of the dominant group) -> Both emphasize gender differentiation (i.e., exaggerating the differences between genders) -> They can be endorsed by all genders and they both feed into gender inequality! The existence of hostile and benevolent sexism as two separate forms of sexism has been demonstrated across various nations spanning all five continents -> Hostile and benevolent sexism correlate positively among individuals in various nations -> The greater the average level of hostile sexism of a nation, the greater its level of benevolent sexism. Benevolently sexist men: – NOT more likely to oppose early marriages for girls (– NOT more likely to oppose sexual harassment – NOT more likely to reject wife abuse– MORE likely to blame a female victim of an acquaintance rape if she violated gender role expectations for feminine purity and chastity.
Among women -> Women tend to view benevolent sexism as less harmful than hostile sexism and they under-estimate the possibility that hostile and benevolent sexism can co-exist in the same man– Sexism is hard to combat because it is maintained by seemingly positive behaviours toward women (chivalry) which are harder to recognize as discrimination.
Becker and Wright (2013)
Objective: examine if exposure to benevolent vs hostile sexism affects collective action against sexism among women. -> Participants: N = 99 women in a school for prospective schoolteachers. -> Online experiment -> Four conditions: Participants in each condition read six statements that differed in content: - benevolent sexism - hostile sexism - gender-neutral content - gender-unrelated content. Deception: they were told this is a memory study, ‘remember those statements for a recognition task later’. In the benevolent, hostile, and gender-neutral conditions, participants read: “recent research has demonstrated that most men support the following six statements”. -> Benevolent sexism. “Secretly, most women yearn for a man whose arms they can find protection and security in” “Women have a way of caring that men are not capable of in the same way” -> Hostile sexism. “Women are too easily offended” “When women have to work together, they often get into cat fights”. In the benevolent, hostile, and gender-neutral conditions, participants read: “recent research has demonstrated that most men support the following six statements” -> Gender-neutral control condition. “Women are healthier than men” “As compared to men, women are more systematic”. -> Gender-unrelated control condition. Participants read: “recent research has demonstrated that most people support the following six statements” “Tea is healthier than coffee” “Biking is better for the environment than driving a car”. Dependent variable: Collective action tendencies: (10 items) “I would participate in a rally demanding equal salaries for women and men” “I would forward an online petition to establish a law demanding minimum quotas for women in leading positions” “I would act against sexism in general”. Mediator: Gender-specific system justification (Jost & Kay, 2005) (6 items): e.g., “In general, relations between men and women are fair” “The division of societal power between women and men is fair” “The division of societal power between women and men is just.” Exposure to benevolent sexism undermines collective action, vice versa. Much better to recognise discrimination in hostile sexism. In conclusion exposure to benevolent sexism can reduce collective action against sexism by increasing gender-specific-system justification.
Stigmatization - Gorska et al 2017
Objective: examine the effect of institutional legal discrimination on collective action. -> How heterosexist (anti-gay) legal regulations affect collective action of LGB (lesbian, gay, and bisexual) people in five East European countries: Croatia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland. Institutional sexual stigma/heterosexism/ structural stigma: “set of organizing principles that either do not recognize the interests of LGBTQI people or overtly subject this group to discrimination and denigration”. Legal manifestation of sexual stigma examples: (a) punishing sexual acts same-sex adults (b) denying basic civil liberties to sexual minorities (c) reinforcing power differentials between heterosexual majority and sexual minorities (e.g., no antidiscrimination laws in some European countries). The five countries differ in institutional sexual stigma (e.g. Croatia recognizes registered same-sex partnerships, but Poland does not) -> Online study -> N = 1,365 adult LGBTQI individuals (28.9% lesbian women, 45.5% gay men, 20.6% bisexual women, 5.0% bisexual men). Independent variable: institutional sexual stigma - index for each country measuring institutional sexual stigma enshrined in laws - index measuring the time (in years) elapsed since the institutionalization of same-sex civil partnerships in the country. DV = collective action intentions. Sexual stigma in the legal system suppressed collective action among LGB individuals. Why does institutional sexual stigma prevent collective action? Mediator: Internalized homophobia -> Internalized homophobia: acceptance of societal anti-homosexual attitudes by gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals which leads to a negative effect they project on themselves. Measured using an internalised homophobia scale. Institutional sexual stigma reduces collective action by increasing internalized homophobia -> Target of collective action (institutional discrimination) is also an obstacle to collective action! Institutional legal discrimination can reduce collective action in the context of heterosexist laws.
