The Relative Impact of Anger and Efficacy on Collective Action is Affected by Feelings of Fear

Abstract

Two well-established predictors of collective action are perceptions of group effi cacy and feelings of anger. The current research investigates the extent to which the relative impact of these variables differs when fear is or is not also included as a predictor of collective action. The results of two experiments indicate that when fear is not assessed, the importance of anger as a predictor of action is underestimated while the importance of group effi cacy is overestimated. The results further indicate that fear, in addition to affecting the impact of known causes of collective action (anger and group effi cacy), is a powerful inhibitor of collective action. The implications for current theoretical models of collective action instigators are discussed.For the Roman Emperor Caligula, the above quote was a favorite maxim. History suggests that Caligula was a tyrannical ruler who was hated by both the general population and the Roman Senate. Although Caligula was well aware of how he was perceived, he believed he could avoid being overthrown as long as people feared him more than they hated him. Caligula's quote nicely illustrates the potential connection between fear, anger, and collective action. Although common-sense explanations of collective action imply that fear can inhibit collective action, social psychologists have largely overlooked fear as an inhibitor of protest

Redefining Disability, Re-imagining the Self: Disability Identification Predicts Self-esteem and Strategic Responses to Stigma

“…Moreover, at the group level, specific social identities (e.g., romantic partner or worker) may become salient in different situations (e.g., rejection as a potential mate or employment dismissal attributed specifically to disability-based discrimination; Turner et al, 1987). Future experimental research could also examine other short-term contextual factors, including in-group threat via loss of social or medical services or the anticipation or arousal of emotions such as disgust, pity and fear that may impact the strength of disability identification and willingness to engage in collective action (Miller, Cronin, Garcia, & Branscombe, 2009). …”

Why the psychology of collective action requires qualitative transformation as well as quantitative change

“…Other emotions shape collective action by inhibiting tendencies towards protest. These inhibitory emotions include both negative emotions such as fear (Miller, Cronin, Garcia, & Branscombe, 2009), and positive emotions such as admiration (Sweetman, Spears, Livingstone, & Manstead, 2013).…”

“…Stability or stasis in that system therefore does not necessarily indicate the absence of factors that would precipitate change, such as the perceptions of illegitimacy that might instigate collective action (see Stewart, Leach, & Pratto, 2013). Rather, these factors are neutralised by countervailing forces; for example, emotions such as fear (Miller et al, 2009), or practical barriers to collective organisation or expression (Klandermans, 1997). The reason that the accumulation of quantitative changes can lead Quantitative change and qualitative transformation 19 to qualitative transformations -when people act on their perceived illegitimacy -is that at a certain point, the quantitative change breaks the equilibrium between the opposing forces, allowing abrupt change to occur in the system as one force suddenly overwhelms the other, at least until new, countervailing forces emerge in response to the abrupt change.…”

Collective action as relational interaction: A new relational hypothesis on how non-activists become activists

“…This is a core motivation for non-activists to engage in collective action (e.g., Tausch et al, 2011; see also Miller, Cronin, Garcia, & Branscombe, 2009;Smith, Pettigrew, Pippin, & Bialosiewicz, 2012), yet activists appear less motivated by their feelings of group-based anger about perceived groupbased unfairness (Stürmer & Simon, 2004; see also Van Zomeren et al, 2012). The paradox is this: Activists no doubt care much about redressing unfairness (Duncan, 2012;Van Zomeren et al, 2012); yet their emotional experience of it does not seem to explain their engagement in collective action (Stürmer & Simon, 2004.…”