When believing in the union is (not) enough: The role of threat and norms in intentions to act on union legitimacy and efficacy beliefs

Abstract

Three field studies conducted with academics and students examined the dynamic role of threat and normative support for a union in qualifying the relationship between union-related legitimacy and efficacy beliefs, and union intentions. There was evidence for interplay between threat and norms in facilitating people acting in accordance with their union beliefs, and in providing the conditions where those with weaker beliefs may be mobilised. In Study 1, students' perception of threat to group interests facilitated their preparedness to act on pro-union legitimacy and efficacy beliefs. In Study 2, among academics who perceived low threat, acting on union legitimacy and efficacy beliefs was contingent on a pro-union norm, while those who perceived high threat were prepared to act on their union legitimacy beliefs regardless of the normative environment. Finally, in Study 3, a pro-union norm again facilitated acting on union beliefs in a low threat condition and overcame the importance of legitimacy and efficacy beliefs in a high threat condition. In sum, this research makes a case for the importance of union strategies attending to both the framing of intergroup threat and the communication of in-group normative support for the union.

Choosing between conciliatory and oppositional leaders: The role of out‐group signals and in‐group leader candidates' collective action tactics

“…An understanding of how out‐groups (e.g., government, religious, and other civic organizations) can bolster or undermine these competing voices of leadership, is one important direction for future research. Specific questions about differences in how negotiators, spokespeople, and leaders are evaluated could form part of that research agenda, along with questions about whether actors themselves understand support as a strategic response to a set of circumstances (e.g., out‐group actions), or whether it is accompanied by a re‐evaluation of one's own identity and indeed, of what constitutes appropriate forms of collective response (Blackwood et al, ).…”

“…Research informed by the social identity perspective (Tajfel, ; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, ) finds that contexts perceived in terms of group‐based competition (or conflict) render people more likely to accentuate intergroup differences (Jetten, Spears, & Postmes, ), attend more to in‐group sources of influence (Blackwood, Terry, & Duck, ), and display increased in‐group cohesion and out‐group hostility (Wright & Tropp, ). Such effects favor leaders whose objective is to mobilize support for confrontation with the out‐group.…”

“…Second, our broader aim is to encourage cross-fertilization between the collective action, intergroup negotiation, and leadership research domains (see also Becker & Tausch, 2015;Gleibs & Haslam, 2016;Louis et al, 2016;Steffens et al, 2015;Van Stekelenburg, 2013). of group-based competition (or conflict) render people more likely to accentuate intergroup differences (Jetten, Spears, & Postmes, 2004), attend more to in-group sources of influence (Blackwood, Terry, & Duck, 2015), and display increased in-group cohesion and out-group hostility (Wright & Tropp, 2002). Such effects favor leaders whose objective is to mobilize support for confrontation with the out-group.…”

The “Activist Identity” and Activism across Domains: A Multiple Identities Analysis

“…Similarly, in the social identity approach more broadly, contextually salient identities are proposed to shape behavior via meaningful, group‐specific norms (e.g., for environmental activism, Fielding et al., ). Membership in activist groups is thus plausibly linked to stronger in‐group identification (Drury & Reicher, ; Drury et al., ), responsiveness to in‐group norms (e.g., Amiot, Sansfaçon, & Louis, ), and greater relevant, domain‐specific activism (e.g., Blackwood et al., , ). In the same vein, the recent scholarship of opinion group membership (e.g., McGarty, Bliuc, Thomas, & Bongiorno, ) shows that activists’ mobilization is often on the basis of an identity defined by a single issue (e.g., opposition to battery farming), with no prima facie reason for generalized activism for other causes.…”

“…Traditional approaches to collective action consider identification with each social movement as the key driver, with other identities irrelevant or perhaps even antagonistic to engagement (e.g., Stürmer & Simon, ; also Blackwood, Livingstone, & Leach, ; Blackwood, Terry, & Duck, ; Thomas, McGarty, & Mavor, ,b; van Zomeren, Leach, & Spears, ; van Zomeren, Postmes, & Spears, ). If two activists on different sides of a political debate both identify as activists, this approach points out, a generalized activist identity does not make them likely to appear at each other's rallies.…”