Given the social importance of political activism, it is critical to understand what motivates individuals to engage in it. Past research has predominantly focused on individual and collective frustrations as factors that motivate political actions. At the same time, the role of the positive experiences that activists gain from their political engagement was largely neglected. Drawing on quest for significance theory, we proposed that when people engage in political actions on behalf of important social values, they gain a sense of personal significance, and as a result of these positive feelings, they are more willing to self-sacrifice for the cause in the future. We tested that hypothesis in six studies, which included both online and offline samples of political activists engaged in different forms of activism that challenge the neoliberal order: activism for a radical left-wing party (N = 84), a pro-democratic social movement (N = 1,409), feminist activism (N = 158, N = 258), environmental activism (N = 396), and activism for labor and healthcare rights (N = 156). The results we obtained were in line with our hypothesized model. We discuss the implications of our findings for individuals who want to mobilize support for political movements.

Reactions of losers and winners of political elections have important consequences for the political system during times of power transition. In four studies conducted immediately before and after the 2016 U.S. presidential elections, we investigated how personal significance induced by success or failure of one's candidate is related to hostile versus benevolent intentions toward political adversaries. We found that the less significant supporters of Hillary Clinton and supporters of Donald Trump felt after an imagined (Study 1A) or actual (Study 2) electoral failure the more they were willing to engage in peaceful actions against the elected president and the less they were willing to accept the results of the elections. However, while significance gain due to an imagined or actual electoral success was related to more benevolent intentions among Clinton supporters (Study 1B), it was related to more hostile intentions among Trump supporters (Studies 1B, 2, and 3).

No abstract

Abstract. Prejudice and stereotypes are two negative phenomena influencing our everyday lives. Current theory proposes that they are the effects of death cues acting mainly subconsciously, causing a potential for anxiety and provoking to defend our beliefs and maintain self-esteem. Although numerous studies have confirmed the relation between mortality salience and negative attitudes toward outgroups, moderators of this relation drew less attention so far. The following paper proposes three factors to consider: need for closure, religiosity and death attitude of an individual. Previous research as well as predictions based on the Terror Management Theory let us presume that each of them acting differently may play a significant role in shaping stereotyped and prejudiced cognition. An in-depth study shall add to further exploration of the mechanisms of stereotyping and prejudice toward outgroups.