Disrupting the system constructively: Testing the effectiveness of nonnormative nonviolent collective action.

Abstract

Collective action research tends to focus on motivations of the disadvantaged group, rather than on which tactics are effective at driving the advantaged group to make concessions to the disadvantaged. We focused on the potential of nonnormative nonviolent action as a tactic to generate support for concessions among advantaged group members who are resistant to social change. We propose that this tactic, relative to normative nonviolent and to violent action, is particularly effective because it reflects constructive disruption: a delicate balance between disruption (which can put pressure on the advantaged group to respond), and perceived constructive intentions (which can help ensure that the response to action is a conciliatory one). We test these hypotheses across four contexts (total N = 3650). Studies 1-3 demonstrate that nonnormative nonviolent action (compared to inaction, normative nonviolent action, and violent action) is uniquely effective at increasing support for concessions to the disadvantaged among resistant advantaged group members (compared to advantaged group members more open to social change). Study 3 shows that constructive disruption mediates this effect. Study 4 shows that perceiving a real-world ongoing protest as constructively disruptive predicts support for the disadvantaged, while Study 5 examines these processes longitudinally over 2 months in the context of an ongoing social movement. Taken together, we show that nonnormative nonviolent action can be an effective tactic for generating support for concessions to the disadvantaged among those who are most resistant because it generates constructive disruption. Word count: 239 EFFECTIVENESS OF NONNORMATIVE NONVIOLENT COLLECTIVE ACTION 3 Disrupting the System Constructively: Testing the Effectiveness of Nonnormative Nonviolent Collective Action "Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth." ~ Martin Luther King Junior, Letter From a Birmingham JailCollective action and grassroots social movements are often assumed to be pivotal in advancing social change towards greater equality (Louis, 2009). Notable examples include the civil rights movement, early feminist struggles, and the Stonewall riots which are reflected in contemporary movements such as Black Lives Matter, #MeToo, and the modern LGBTQ+ movement. Whereas some protests may have spurred large changes in public opinion or policy, others seem to have had little impact or even provoked regressive backlash (Brym &

Can ‘we’ share the contested territory with ‘them’? Shared territorial ownership perceptions and reconciliation intentions in Kosovo

“…Based on these two measures, we calculated a score representing indirect shared ownership perceptions using a formula developed in the literature on dual identity and constructive disruption (see Shuman, Saguy, van Zomeren, & Halperin, 2020). Our adapted formula is: ðingroup ownership þ outgroup ownershipÞ À jingroup ownership À outgroup ownershipj By subtracting the absolute value of the difference between ingroup and outgroup ownership perceptions from the sum of the two, this formula allocates higher values to participants who strongly agreed with both ingroup and outgroup ownership (shared ownership perceptions, e.g., (7 + 7) − |7 − 7| = 14 -0 = 14), but lower values to participants who either agreed with no group ownership (e.g., (1 + 1) − | 1 − 1| = 2 -0 = 2), or only with one of the two (ingroup ownership perceptions, e.g., (7 + 1) − |7 − 1| = 8 − 6 = 2, or outgroup ownership perceptions, e.g., (1 + 7) − | 1 − 7| = 8 − 6 = 2).…”

Does crossing a moral line justify collective means? Explaining how a perceived moral violation triggers normative and nonnormative forms of collective action

“…We aimed to provide experimental evidence for our main hypotheses: first, that a strong perceived moral violation would trigger increased support for collective action (the moral violation hypothesis), and second, that this increased support would apply to all forms of collective action (the ends justify the means hypothesis). To test our ends justify the means hypothesis more fully, we examined support for three types of collective action: nonviolent normative action, referring to any action that is within socially accepted and legal norms of society (hereafter referred to as normative action), nonviolent nonnormative action, referring to forms of action that are not societally normative but also not violent (hereafter nonnormative action; see Shuman et al., 2020), and violent nonnormative action, referring to action that is not societally nonnormative and violent (hereafter violent action; see Tausch et al., 2011). According to the ends justify the means hypothesis, a perceived moral violation should increase willingness to engage in all three types of action.…”

Does violence within a non-violent social movement help or hurt the movement? Evidence from the 2020 BlackLivesMatter Protests

“…Many of the studies showing that nonviolence is more effective focus on more attitudinal outcomes such as identification with the protestors, attitudinal support, and mobilization in support of the movement. 10,37,38 Whereas, many of the studies that have found positive effects of violence have used more policy related outcomes [5][6][7][8]25 . Thus, it may be that different types of protest are effective for different goals.…”

“…Based on sociological and social-psychological theorizing and research 13,[23][24][25] , disruptive protests may be able to generate support for making the policy changes demanded by the movement. Indeed, some theories on large scale mass protests argue that they derive their power from the ability to disrupt normally cooperative relations and the broader social order.…”

“…Indeed, Gould and Klor (2010) found that exposure to moderate (but not high) levels of Palestinian violence increased support for concessions, particularly among right-wing Israelis 7 . Moreover, Shuman et al (2020) found that disruptive protest was particularly effective for those resistant, as long as the protestors were perceived as having constructive intentions (thus producing "constructive disruption") 25 .…”