Hidden consequences of political efficacy: Testing an efficacy–apathy model of political mobilization.

Abstract

Political efficacy-the belief that one can influence politics-is a key predictor of people's involvement in social movements. Political institutions that are open to change should, however, be seen as just. Thus, political efficacy may ironically undermine minority group members' support for collective action by simultaneously increasing their belief in the fairness of the system. The current study aims to examine this possibility in a national sample of Māori-New Zealand's indigenous minority population. Participants (N = 399) were Māori (Mage = 44.22; SD = 13.30) women (n = 272) and men (n = 115; unreported = 12) who completed a survey assessing their levels of (a) political efficacy, (b) system justification, and (c) support for the political mobilization of their group, as well as relevant demographic covariates. Consistent with past research, political efficacy had a positive direct effect on participants' support for the political mobilization of Māori. Nevertheless, political efficacy also had a negative indirect effect on political mobilization support via increases in system justification. These results held after controlling for participants' ethnic identification, self-efficacy, and conservatism. Our findings uncover a hidden consequence of political efficacy and show that, while believing that the political system is receptive to change predicts political mobilization, it can also undermine minorities' support for the mobilization of their group. Thus, our results uncover a previously unknown process that maintains inequality between ethnic minority and majority group members.

Protesting to challenge or defend the system? A system justification perspective on collective action

“…System justification also correlated positively with political efficacy for both groups. In other words, believing that society is fair increased people's sense that they could change the system (also see Osborne et al., ).…”

“…Third, a conservative government was in power in New Zealand at the time our data were collected, creating an ideal opportunity to investigate our hypotheses about the impact the motivation to support the status quo has on collective action. Fourth, social psychological research has typically assessed the predictors of collective action using North American (e.g., Becker, Wright, Lubensky, & Zhou, ; Simon et al., ) and European (e.g., Becker & Wright, ; Stürmer & Simon, ) samples, with comparatively little research conducted in Australasia (for exceptions, see Osborne & Sibley, ; Osborne et al., , ; Thomas, Mavor, & McGarty, ). Therefore, investigating the impact of system justification on support for system‐challenging and system‐supporting collective action in an understudied context characterized by longstanding injustice advances the literature in several useful ways.…”

“…Because believing that society is fair and just confers palliative benefits (Jost & Hunyady, ; Napier & Jost, ; Osborne & Sibley, ), system justification should be negatively associated with perceptions of group‐based injustice, group‐based anger, and system‐based anger. To the extent that a fair system is one that is responsive to the demands of its people (see Osborne, Yogeeswaran, & Sibley, ), system justification should also be positively associated with believing that the system can be changed—and that citizens therefore have at least some degree of collective efficacy (see also Cichocka, Górska, Jost, Sutton, & Bilewicz, in press). At the same time, the motivation to justify the system conflicts with members of low‐status groups’ need to hold their group in high esteem (Jost, Burgess, & Mosso, ).…”

System justification theory at 25: Evaluating a paradigm shift in psychology and looking towards the future

“…In another study, Osborne, Yogeeswaran, and Sibley () theorized that system justification may (ironically) subvert the positive effects of political efficacy on support for social change. Specifically, many have argued that disadvantaged groups must first believe that their often‐costly efforts will be effective before engaging in collective action to redress inequality (Kelly & Kelly, ; Klandermans, ; Tausch et al ., ; Thomas & Louis, ; Thomas, Mavor, & McGarty, ; van Zomeren, Postmes, & Spears, ; van Zomeren, Spears, Fischer, & Leach, ).…”

“I Have a Dream” of a Colorblind Nation? Examining the Relationship between Racial Colorblindness, System Justification, and Support for Policies that Redress Inequalities

“…System‐justifying beliefs represent people's motivation to justify the status quo by ensuring that the existing social, political, and economic system is perceived as fair and legitimate (e.g., Jost, Banaji & Nosek, ; Jost & Hunyady, ). Previous research demonstrates that beliefs in the legitimacy of the status quo decreases support for social policies that redress inequalities and undermine political action (e.g., Jost & Hunyady, ; Osborne & Sibley, ; Osborne, Yogeeswaran & Sibley, , ; Wakslak, Jost, Tyler & Chen, ). Accordingly, we expected that if endorsement of colorblindness predicts decreased support for policies that redress racial inequalities, it would be through system‐justifying beliefs.…”