scholarly journals Emotion, Efficacy, and Protest Intentions: Testing a Multilevel Dual Pathway Model of Collective Action

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Blaine G Robbins ◽  
Steven Pfaff ◽  
Ross Matsueda

What are the causes of anger and efficacy, and their consequences for protest intentions? Here we propose a multilevel dual pathway model of collective action where anger and efficacy operate at multiple levels of analysis. To test our model, we administer a factorial survey experiment of student protest to a disproportionate stratified random sample of undergraduate students (N = 880). We find that the indirect effect of anger on protest intentions follows two routes—one dispositional and one situational—while the indirect effect of efficacy flows through a situational channel. We also find that the dual pathways of anger and efficacy are triggered by a broad set of situational conditions (incidental grievances, selective rewards and punishments, collective action frames, and size of the protest), while anger is also a function of a narrow set of dispositional factors (protest norms and attitudes). Our results imply that understanding the multilevel nature of anger and efficacy can help social movement organizations better coordinate collective action.

Author(s):  
Paul Lichterman

This article proposes a new and better concept of civic culture and shows how it can benefit sociology. It argues that a better concept of civic culture gives us a stronger, comparative, and contextual perspective on voluntary associations—the conventional American empirical referent for “civic”—while also improving our sociologies of religion and social movements. The article first considers the classic perspective on civic culture and its current incarnations in order to show why we need better conceptual groundwork than they have offered. It then introduces the alternative approach, which is rooted in a pragmatist understanding of collective action and both builds on and departs in some ways from newly prominent understandings of culture in sociology. This approach’s virtues are illustrated with ethnographic examples from a variety of volunteer groups, social movement organizations, and religious associations.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhen Hao ◽  
Alexander K Saeri ◽  
Lijuan Cui

In three experiments, we manipulated procedural fairness (Experiment 1) and group-based anger and group efficacy (Experiments 2 and 3) to investigate the independent pathways of anger and efficacy for collective action in China. In Experiment 3 we also examined pathways to “soft” (low-cost) and “hard” (high-cost) collective action. Our results supported the dual-pathway model of collective action: group-based anger and perceived group efficacy independently predicted collective action intentions to protest against increased school fees and unhygienic cafeteria conditions for Chinese university students. Group-based anger predicted soft collective action intentions; both anger and efficacy predicted hard collective action intentions. Identification with the disadvantaged group was found to moderate the problem-focused coping pathway for hard collective action intentions. For high but not low identifiers, manipulated group efficacy predicted hard collective action intentions. We discuss our findings with specific reference to collective action research in China.


2009 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 293-314 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeff Larson ◽  
Sarah Soule

To explain varying levels of collective action by social movement organizations in the United States operating during the height of the 1960s protest cycle, this article examines social movement sector-level dynamics alongside indicators of resources and political opportunities. Drawing on hypotheses from neoinstitutional, organizational ecology, and embeddedness perspectives, the paper emphasizes the importance of understanding the sector-level dynamics of legitimacy, competition, and embeddedness when explaining levels of collective action. Results show strong support for neoinstitutional, organizational ecology, and embeddedness theories, but more mixed support for arguments about how political opportunities and resources affect levels of collective action by social movement organizations.


2016 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 341-360 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pauline Ketelaars

This study analyzes the extent to which collective action frames with certain qualities resonate with protesters. It goes beyond previous research on frame resonance by directly examining the frames that demonstrators use to motivate their participation and by comparing them with the frames of social movement organizations. The data consist of protest surveys from more than 5,000 participants in twenty-nine street demonstrations on various issues in three countries—Belgium, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. Results show that frames that appeal to people's everyday experiences resonate more than abstract or technical frames do. Also, resonance is higher when blame for the issue is put on a specific person or organization than when intangible forces or causes are held responsible. A comparison of two Dutch student demonstrations illustrates the results. These events were similar in most aspects but differed in framing and the extent to which protesters aligned with the organizers' frames.


2019 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edwin Amenta ◽  
Thomas Alan Elliott ◽  
Nicole Shortt ◽  
Amber C. Tierney ◽  
Didem Türkoğlu ◽  
...  

When social movement organizations receive extensive newspaper coverage, why is it sometimes substantive and sometimes not? By “substantive,” we mean coverage that reflects serious treatment of the movement's issues, demands, or policy claims. Scholars agree that the news media are key to movement organizations' influence, helping them alter public discourse and effect political change, but often find that protests are covered nonsubstantively. Employing insights from literatures on historical institutionalism, the social organization of the news, and the consequences of movements, we elaborate an “institutional mediation” model that identifies the interactive effects on coverage of news institutions' operating procedures, movement organizations' characteristics and action, and political contexts. Although movement actors suffer compound legitimacy deficits with journalists, the institutional mediation model identifies the openings news institutions provide, the movement organizational characteristics, the forms of collective action likely to induce substantive news treatment, and the political contexts that will amplify or dampen these effects. We derive four interactive hypotheses from this model, addressing the effects of organizational identities, collective action, and political contexts on news outcomes. We appraise the hypotheses with comparative and qualitative comparative analyses of more than 1000 individually coded articles discussing the five most-covered organizations of the 1960s U.S. civil rights movement across four national newspapers. We find support for each hypothesis and discuss the implications for other movement organizations and the current media context.


2014 ◽  
Vol 54 (3) ◽  
pp. 539-560 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rim Saab ◽  
Nicole Tausch ◽  
Russell Spears ◽  
Wing-Yee Cheung

Author(s):  
Luis E. Hestres ◽  
Jill E. Hopke

The past two decades have transformed how interest groups, social movement organizations, and individuals engage in collective action. Meanwhile, the climate change advocacy landscape, previously dominated by well-established environmental organizations, now accommodates new ones focused exclusively on this issue. What binds these closely related trends is the rapid diffusion of communication technologies like the internet and portable devices such as smartphones and tablets. Before the diffusion of digital and mobile technologies, collective action, whether channeled through interest groups or social movement organizations, consisted of amassing and expending resources—money, staff, time, etc.—on behalf of a cause via top-down organizations. These resource expenditures often took the form of elite persuasion: media outreach, policy and scientific expertise, legal action, and lobbying. But broad diffusion of digital technologies has enabled alternatives to this model to flourish. In some cases, digital communication technologies have simply made the collective action process faster and more cost-effective for organizations; in other cases, these same technologies now allow individuals to eschew traditional advocacy groups and instead rely on digital platforms to self-organize. New political organizations have also emerged whose scope and influence would not be possible without digital technologies. Journalism has also felt the impact of technological diffusion. Within networked environments, digital news platforms are reconfiguring traditional news production, giving rise to new paradigms of journalism. At the same time, climate change and related issues are increasingly becoming the backdrop to news stories on topics as varied as politics and international relations, science and the environment, economics and inequality, and popular culture. Digital communication technologies have significantly reduced the barriers for collective action—a trend that in many cases has meant a reduced role for traditional brick-and-mortar advocacy organizations and their preferred strategies. This trend is already changing the types of advocacy efforts that reach decision-makers, which may help determine the policies that they are willing to consider and adopt on a range of issues—including climate change. In short, widespread adoption of digital media has fueled broad changes in both collective action and climate change advocacy. Examples of advocacy organizations and campaigns that embody this trend include 350.org, the Climate Reality Project, and the Guardian’s “Keep It in the Ground” campaign. 350.org was co-founded in 2007 by environmentalist and author Bill McKibben and several of his former students from Middlebury College in Vermont. The Climate Reality project was founded under another name by former U.S. Vice President and Nobel Prize winner Al Gore. The Guardian’s “Keep It in the Ground” fossil fuel divestment campaign, which is a partnership with 350.org and its Go Fossil Free Campaign, was launched in March 2015 at the behest of outgoing editor-in-chief Alan Rusbridger.


2004 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-99 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan Sturmer ◽  
Bernd Simon

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document