Beyond normative and non-normative: A systematic review on predictors of confrontational collective action

Abstract

This paper critically examines the normative vs. non-normative distinction commonly used in collective action research. To explore the similarities as well as the differences between antecedents of normative vs. non-normative actions, we conducted a systematic review on diverse predictors of non-normative, radical, and violent actions. We examined 37 social and political psychology studies published after 2010 and identified five recurring themes: identity, efficacy, injustice, emotions, and norms. Findings exhibited significant overlaps with those associated with normative collective action. Thus, a reconceptualization is needed to undermine the rigid boundaries between these action types, highlighting the intricate interplay of factors that transcend the conventional binary dichotomy. Aiming to avoid conceptual ambiguity and challenge the perspective that associating particular collective actions with unwarranted violence using social norms as fixed and a priori, we propose the term “confrontational collective action” to reconceptualize the normative vs. non-normative categorization. Through this reconceptualization, we discussed the main limitations in the literature, focusing on how studies approach normativity and efficacy, and addressing the issue of decontextualization in the literature. This paper calls for a contextually informed understanding of confrontational collective action that recognizes what is seen as ‘normative’ can change over time through intra- and intergroup interactions.