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.

Eight hundred and twenty-nine adults, drawn from 12 locations in all four parts of India, participated in a study that explored the joint effects of Indians' discrepant mindset, context sensitivity, and quality of environment on their modes of behavior. Respondents also predicted how a person is likely to change his behavior when the conditions in which he works change from disabling to enabling. The fi ndings showed that the two most dominant modes of behavior-self-serving calculative and achieving high positive goalcoexisted, but were differently caused. Context sensitivity facilitated both modes of behavior; but adequate infrastructure and friendly and helpful people in the neighborhood encouraged only achieving high positive goal behavior. On the contrary, duplicity in professing desirable but acting under realistic compulsions, poor quality of environment, and low levels of development were conducive to self-serving calculative behavior. As a situation changed from disabling to enabling, a person was likely to shift towards more positive behavior.

Deteriorating environmental quality is the source of a variety of grave problems facing urban residents. This article reports slum residents' perceptions and responses to air and water pollution, noise, garbage, crowding, and traffic. The respondents were 280 male and female slum dwellers in Old Delhi, New Delhi, and Allahabad in India. Results showed that slum dwellers of Delhi reported greater stress compared to the respondents of Allahabad, and they further reported greater helplessness and acceptance in coping with the environmental stressors. The results also showed gender differences in the perception of some of the environmental stressors.

The present study investigates emotional reactions that follow norm violations involving Hindus and Muslims in India. It also studies how in-group's emotional reaction is predicted by the emotion that the group experiences in tandem with certain contextual factors, such as, fraternal relative deprivation (FRD), social identity, power to harm and resource power. Data were collected on 221 Hindus and 167 Muslims. Three different types of norm-violating situations were presented and subjects were asked to rate the extent to which they and their group will experience anger, fear or anxiety in such situations. Respondents were asked to choose between conciliation, retaliation and retribution as one of their preferred emotional reactions. Although, conciliation was the most preferred reaction for resolving conflicts for both, Hindus and Muslims, this preference changed from one situation to another. Across three situations, anger was the most intensely experienced emotion followed by the emotions of anxiety and fear. Anger evoked retaliatory reactions among Hindus while Muslims preferred a retributory reaction in situations involving strong norm violations.

No abstract