Intentional Participation and Nonproportional Distribution

2021 ◽  
pp. 44-65
Author(s):  
Avia Pasternak
Keyword(s):  
Collective Action ◽  
Group Members ◽  
Proportional Distribution

This chapter develops a justification for a nonproportional distribution of a group’s remedial liabilities for its wrongdoings. The justification is grounded in the group members’ participation in their group. Drawing on Christopher Kutz’s model of collective action, it suggests that people participate in a group act when they have a participatory intention in take part in the act. It then argues that when people intentionally participate in collective action, they incur the duty to accept a nonproportional share of the burdens that flow from that action, in circumstances where a proportional distribution is not feasible or is very costly. However, there are limits to this obligation: it arises only when the group members’ participatory intentions are genuine, and not forced on them against their will.

scholarly journals Whites for racial justice: How contact with Black Americans predicts support for collective action among White Americans

2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (6) ◽  
pp. 893-912 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hema Preya Selvanathan ◽  
Pirathat Techakesari ◽  
Linda R. Tropp ◽  
Fiona Kate Barlow
Keyword(s):  
Social Change ◽  
Collective Action ◽  
Intergroup Contact ◽  
Black Americans ◽  
White Americans ◽  
Racial Justice ◽  
Group Efficacy ◽  
Total N ◽  
Group Members ◽  
White Guilt

Advantaged group members have an important role to play in creating social change, and intergroup contact has tremendous implications in shaping intergroup relations. However, little research has examined how intergroup contact predicts advantaged group members’ inclinations toward collective action to support the interests of disadvantaged groups. The present research investigates how contact with Black Americans shapes White Americans’ willingness to engage in collective action for racial justice and support for the Black Lives Matter movement. Three studies of White Americans (total N = 821) consistently reveal that positive contact with Black Americans predicts greater support for collective action through a sequential process of fostering greater feelings of empathy for Black Americans and anger over injustice. These findings hold even when taking into account other relevant psychological factors (i.e., White guilt and identification, negative contact, group efficacy, and moral convictions). The present research contributes to our understanding of how advantaged group members come to engage in social change efforts.

scholarly journals Internalized equality and protest against injustice: The role of disadvantaged group members’ self‐respect in collective action tendencies

2020 ◽  
Vol 50 (3) ◽  
pp. 547-560 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniela Renger ◽  
Silke Eschert ◽  
Mimke L. Teichgräber ◽  
Sophus Renger
Keyword(s):  
Collective Action ◽  
Disadvantaged Group ◽  
Group Members ◽  
Action Tendencies

Beyond prejudice: Relational inequality, collective action, and social change revisited

2012 ◽  
Vol 35 (6) ◽  
pp. 451-466 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Dixon ◽  
Mark Levine ◽  
Steve Reicher ◽  
Kevin Durrheim
Keyword(s):  
Social Change ◽  
Collective Action ◽  
Intergroup Relations ◽  
Prejudice Reduction ◽  
Dominant Group ◽  
Negative Attitudes ◽  
Main Target ◽  
Subordinate Group ◽  
Group Members ◽  
Intergroup Inequality

AbstractThis response clarifies, qualifies, and develops our critique of the limits of intergroup liking as a means of challenging intergroup inequality. It does not dispute that dominant groups may espouse negative attitudes towards subordinate groups. Nor does it dispute that prejudice reduction can be an effective way of tackling resulting forms of intergroup hostility. What it does dispute is the assumption that getting dominant group members and subordinate group members to like each other more is the best way of improving intergroup relations that are characterized by relatively stable, institutionally embedded, relations of inequality. In other words, the main target of our critique is the model of change that underlies prejudice reduction interventions and the mainstream concept of “prejudice” on which they are based.

Political Accountability and Democratic Institutions: An Experimental Assessment

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-17 ◽  
Author(s):  
José Gabriel Castillo ◽  
John Hamman
Keyword(s):  
Collective Action ◽  
Political Accountability ◽  
Democratic Institutions ◽  
Public Goods Game ◽  
Experimental Assessment ◽  
Costly Punishment ◽  
Group Outcomes ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Group Members ◽  
Group Member

Abstract We study the extent to which centralized democratic institutions enhance collective action under political accountability. In a public goods game with costly punishment, we vary the appointment of one group member to enforce punishment. Specifically, we compare democratically elected punishers to those appointed exogenously, under both single- and multiple-selection environments. We find that democratically appointed sanctioning authority has muted effects on group outcomes; yet, they contribute as much as other group members when facing repeated elections, as opposed to the ones in single selection or exogenously appointed. One important feature of modern governance to discipline authorities is political accountability; when in place, it offers different incentives, and in particular, we observe a responsibility effect reflected in higher contribution behavior. Important in our study results, this effect rises only under a democracy.

Understanding how common ingroup identity undermines collective action among disadvantaged-group members

2016 ◽  
Vol 63 ◽  
pp. 26-35 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elze G. Ufkes ◽  
Justine Calcagno ◽  
Demis E. Glasford ◽  
John F. Dovidio
Keyword(s):  
Collective Action ◽  
Disadvantaged Group ◽  
Group Members ◽  
Common Ingroup Identity ◽  
Ingroup Identity

scholarly journals Intergroup Contact and Social Change: An Integrated Contact-Collective Action Model

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tabea Hässler ◽  
Özden Melis Uluğ ◽  
Mariska Kappmeier ◽  
Giovanni A. Travaglino
Keyword(s):  
Social Change ◽  
Collective Action ◽  
Intergroup Contact ◽  
Sedative Effect ◽  
Social Intervention ◽  
Policy Recommendations ◽  
Action Model ◽  
Group Members ◽  
Positive Contact ◽  
The Many

Previous research has shown that positive intergroup contact among disadvantaged groupmembers may predict a so-called ‘sedative’ effect according to which positive contact isassociated with reduced support for social change. Conversely, positive contact is associatedwith increased support for social change toward equality among advantaged group members.This raises the important question of under which circumstances intergroup contact canencourage support for social change among both disadvantaged and advantaged groups. Inthis theoretical article, we tackle this question by introducing a new Integrated Contact-Collective Action Model (ICCAM). We first provide an up-to-date review of how intergroupcontact may promote or hinder social change for both disadvantaged and advantaged groups.We, then, use ICCAM to examine when the many forms of intergroup contact promote orhinder support for social change, proposing the existence of two different paths fordisadvantaged and advantaged group members. Finally, we discuss the implications of themodel for social intervention and make policy recommendations stemming from a review ofavailable evidence.

scholarly journals Protesting to protect “us” and/or “them”? Explaining why members of third groups are willing to engage in collective action

2018 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 140-160 ◽  
Author(s):  
Liga Klavina ◽  
Martijn van Zomeren
Keyword(s):  
Social Psychology ◽  
Collective Action ◽  
Group Identification ◽  
Black Americans ◽  
Police Brutality ◽  
Gas Extraction ◽  
Latino Americans ◽  
Group Members

In three studies we test whether three key predictors of collective action (i.e., group identification, anger, and efficacy) also predict whether and how members of third groups are willing to undertake collective action. Little is known about this, particularly about whether and how third-group members may engage in collective action to protect their own group and/or to protect an outgroup in need. In three studies that employed different three-group contexts, we found that the three predictors contributed to third-group members’ collective action intentions aimed at protecting the ingroup as well as those aimed at protecting the outgroup. Study 1 found this among Latvians ( N = 89) in response to the Russian annexation of Ukrainian territory; Study 2 found this among residents of a Dutch village ( N = 98) located nearby a gas-extraction-related earthquake region, in response to authorities’ inadequate protection of the residents of that region; and Study 3 found this among Latino Americans ( N = 278) in response to police brutality against Black Americans. Moving beyond replication and application of previous work, our set of studies show first evidence for ingroup and outgroup protection as motives of third-group members’ collective action. We discuss the implications of our findings for the broader social psychology of collective action literature.

Acting together with the enemy

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Siwar Aslih ◽  
Ruthie Pliskin ◽  
Eric Shuman ◽  
Martijn van Zomeren ◽  
Tamar Saguy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Collective Action ◽  
Joint Action ◽  
Power Relations ◽  
Intergroup Contact ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Disadvantaged Group ◽  
Group Members ◽  
Blacks And Whites ◽  
Perceived Instrumentality ◽  
Key Barrier

The current research examines joint collective action (e.g., between Blacks and Whites) from the perspective of disadvantaged group members, for whom such action reflects a dilemma of whether to “sleep with the enemy.” Integrating insights from research on intergroup contact, helping, and collective action, we suggest that an important part of this dilemma lies in the tension between a key motivation (joint action’s perceived instrumentality) and a key barrier (joint action’s perceived potential to normalize power relations between the groups). We test this idea in three studies using different methods and different intergroup contexts. Studies 1 and 2 showed that manipulated instrumentality increased motivation for joint action, whereas manipulated normalization decreased this motivation. Study 3 showed that manipulated normalization decreased perceptions of instrumentality and thus undermined the motivation for joint action, and this occurred mainly among high identifiers with the disadvantaged group, for whom the dilemma should be most salient. We discuss the implications of our findings for theory and research on collective action and call for future research on joint action.

scholarly journals Support for group-based inequality among members of low-status groups as an ingroup status-enhancement strategy

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Catarina L. Carvalho ◽  
Isabel R. Pinto ◽  
Rui Costa-Lopes ◽  
Darío Paéz ◽  
José M. Marques
Keyword(s):  
Collective Action ◽  
Social Dominance ◽  
Contextual Factors ◽  
Social Dominance Orientation ◽  
High Status ◽  
Status Group ◽  
Group Members ◽  
Ingroup Identification ◽  
Minimal Groups ◽  
Status Enhancement

We discuss the idea that competition-based motives boost low-status group members’ support for group-based hierarchy and inequality. Specifically, the more low-status group members feel motivated to compete with a relevant high-status outgroup, based on the belief that existing status positions may be reversed, the more they will defend status differentials (i.e., high social dominance orientation; SDO). Using minimal groups (N = 113), we manipulated ingroup (low vs. high) status, and primed unstable status positions to all participants. As expected, we found that SDO positively mediates the relation between ingroup identification and collective action, when ingroup’s status is perceived to be low and status positions are perceived as highly unstable. We discuss the implications of considering situational and contextual factors to better understand individuals’ support for group-based hierarchies and inequality, and the advantages of considering ideological processes in predicting collective action.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document