Toward a comprehensive and potentially cross-cultural model of why people engage in collective action: A quantitative research synthesis of four motivations and structural constraints.

Abstract

Sociopsychological theorizing and research on collective action (e.g., social protests) has mushroomed over the last decade, studying a wide variety of groups, contexts, and cultures. Through a quantitative research synthesis of four motivations for collective action (1,235 effects from 403 samples; total N = 123,707), we summarize and synthesize this body of research into the dual chamber model, a comprehensive and potentially cross-cultural model of collective action. We aim to replicate previous meta-analytic conclusions (about identity, injustice, and efficacy) and break new theoretical ground by (a) integrating a fourth motivation (morality) into the very heart of the psychology of collective action, (b) extending these four motivations to advantaged group members acting in solidarity with the disadvantaged, and (c) integrating theoretically relevant structural (i.e., cultural and other contextual) constraints. Results substantiated the dual chamber model as all four motivations yielded unique, positive, medium-sized effects and interrelationships were positive (particularly among morality and identity, conceptualized as the dual chambers of the protester's beating heart). Meta-analytic structural equation modeling supported the added value of including morality. Moreover, findings confirmed that the strongest specific motivations were emotional injustice and politicized identification, while newly adding moral conviction to that list. Finally, the four motivations extended to advantaged group members acting in solidarity with the disadvantaged, while only the identity motivation was constrained by theoretically relevant cultural dimensions and values (e.g., collectivism and hierarchy). We discuss the implications and limitations of the dual chamber model for integrative theorizing, innovative research, and the practice of collective action. Public Significance StatementThis broad research synthesis finds that individuals' engagement in collective action (e.g., protests, demonstrations) is uniquely predicted by their identity, moral, injustice, and efficacy motivations. Despite small cultural constraints, the four motivations predicted collective action across the globe and applied to disadvantaged group members as well as advantaged group members acting in solidarity with them. Our findings offer specific recommendations for practitioners toward targeting these four motivations for collective action.

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

“…When all SIMCA measures were included in a model predicting the three types of action, only anger and not efficacy predicted any form of collective action (except for one very weak relationship between anger and normative action in Study 3). This is in line with recent literature (see Agostini & van Zomeren, 2021) that suggests that efficacy may not be as critical a predictor of action as the other SIMCA variables.…”

“…We see this as a potential link between the violation of individual convictions and collective action, as moral convictions and group identification are seen as the central predictors of action in the Social Identity Model of Collective Action (SIMCA model, van Zomeren et al., 2008; see also van Zomeren et al., 2018). For example, a recent meta‐analysis provided strong support for the “two‐chamber model” of collective action (see Agostini & van Zomeren, 2021), which showed that morality and identity are the core predictors of collective action, the beating heart of the protester so to speak, whereas group‐based anger and group efficacy are more downstream motivations (the bloodstream, metaphorically) that explain additional variance in action. Therefore, we focus on moral convictions and group identity but we report effects of the manipulations on anger and efficacy for all studies and more detailed analysis of the full SIMCA model in the supplementary materials.…”

“…By highlighting the key role of moral convictions and opinion group based identities in this process, these results also help connect value protection processes to the psychology of collective action as defined by SIMCA (Van Zomeren et al., 2008). In a recent review of collective action research and the SIMCA model, Agostini and van Zomeren (2021) show that these two variables are the central predictors of collective action, activating more downstream variables such as group‐based anger and group efficacy that form the full psychological infrastructure for collective action. As such this research shows that value protection processes activate this psychological infrastructure via moral convictions and efficacy.…”

“…In order to not prime the specific conviction by measuring it before the manipulation of the violation, we placed our measure of moral convictions at the end of the study. We further explored whether opinion‐based group identification (i.e., group identities formed around a shared, possibly political, opinion; Bliuc et al., 2007; McGarty et al., 2009) relevant to the moral conviction may be related to moral conviction and collective action as recent research has found moral convictions and identity to be at the core of motivation for action (see Agostini & van Zomeren, 2021).…”

Caught in a social crossfire: Exploring the social forces behind and experience of ambivalence about potential social change

“…One critical insight is that social forces , such as friends, family, existing psychological groups or the broader system are essential to understanding how people navigate potential social change. Such “navigation” can involve demonstrating or signing petitions to influence the status quo they seek to change (for meta‐analyses, see Agostini & van Zomeren, 2021; van Zomeren et al., 2008). Social forces are also crucial for understanding ambivalence about potential social change amidst societal debates.…”