A recent model of collective action distinguishes 2 distinct pathways: an emotional pathway whereby anger in response to injustice motivates action and an efficacy pathway where the belief that issues can be solved collectively increases the likelihood that group members take action (van Zomeren, Spears, Fischer, & Leach, 2004). Research supporting this model has, however, focused entirely on relatively normative actions such as participating in demonstrations. We argue that the relations between emotions, efficacy, and action differ for more extreme, nonnormative actions and propose (a) that nonnormative actions are often driven by a sense of low efficacy and (b) that contempt, which, unlike anger, entails psychological distancing and a lack of reconciliatory intentions, predicts nonnormative action. These ideas were tested in 3 survey studies examining student protests against tuition fees in Germany (N = 332), Indian Muslims' action support in relation to ingroup disadvantage (N = 156), and British Muslims' responses to British foreign policy (N = 466). Results were generally supportive of predictions and indicated that (a) anger was strongly related to normative action but overall unrelated or less strongly related to nonnormative action, (b) contempt was either unrelated or negatively related to normative action but significantly positively predicted nonnormative action, and (c) efficacy was positively related to normative action and negatively related to nonnormative action. The implications of these findings for understanding and dealing with extreme intergroup phenomena such as terrorism are discussed.

We examined predictors of collective action among bystander group members in solidarity with a disadvantaged group by extending the dual pathway model of collective action, which proposes one efficacy‐based and one emotion‐based path to collective action (Van Zomeren, Spears, Fischer, & Leach, 2004). Based on two proposed functions of social identity performance (Klein, Spears, & Reicher, 2007), we distinguished between the efficacy of collective action at consolidating the identity of a protest movement and its efficacy at achieving social change (political efficacy). We expected identity consolidation efficacy to positively predict collective action tendencies directly and indirectly via political efficacy. We also expected collective action tendencies to be positively predicted by moral outrage and by sympathy in response to disadvantaged outgroup's suffering. These hypotheses were supported in two surveys examining intentions to protest for Palestine in Britain (Study 1), and intentions to attend the June 4th vigil in Hong Kong to commemorate the Tiananmen massacre among a sample of Hong Kong citizens (Study 2). The contributions of these findings to research on the dual pathway model of collective action and the different functions of collective action are discussed.

A recent model of collective action distinguishes two distinct pathways; an emotional pathway whereby anger in response to injustice motivates action, and an efficacy pathway where the belief that issues can be solved collectively increases the likelihood that group members take action (van Zomeren, Spears, Fischer, & Leach, 2004). Research supporting this model has, however, focused entirely on relatively normative actions such as participating in demonstrations. The authors argue that the relations between emotions, efficacy and action differ for more extreme, non-normative actions and propose (1) that non-normative actions are often driven by a sense of low efficacy and (2) that contempt, which, unlike anger, entails psychological distancing and a lack of reconciliatory intentions, predicts non-normative action. These ideas are tested in three survey studies examining student protests against tuition fees in Germany (N = 332), Indian Muslims' action support in relation to ingroup disadvantage (N = 156), and British Muslims' responses to British foreign policy (N = 466). Results were generally supportive of predictions and indicated that (a) anger was strongly related to normative action but overall unrelated or less strongly related to non-normative action; (b) contempt was either unrelated or negatively related to normative action but significantly positively predicted nonnormative action; and (c) that efficacy was positively related to normative action and negatively to non-normative action. The implications of these findings for understanding and dealing with extreme intergroup phenomena such as terrorism are discussed.

We examine whether aggressive forms of collective action are predicted by their perceived efficacy and the perceived efficacy of peaceful collective action, and whether the two predictors interact. We present data from surveys examining support for and tendencies toward aggressive collective action among university students who are opposed to increases in tuition fees in Britain (Study 1) and support for suicide bombings against Israeli civilians among Palestinians during the Second Intifada (Study 2). Our results reveal an interaction between the efficacy of peaceful and aggressive collective actions: The more efficacious aggression is perceived to be, the greater its appeal and the less it is assuaged by the efficacy of peaceful action. This implies that (i) people may consider aggressive action whenever it works, even if peaceful action is efficacious, and (ii) people may consider aggressive action even when it seems unpromising, if peaceful action is not efficacious, in an apparent nothing‐to‐lose strategy.

The version in the Kent Academic Repository may differ from the final published version. Users are advised to check http://kar.kent.ac.uk for the status of the paper. Users should always cite the published version of record.