Emotion and Efficacy Pathways to Normative and Non-normative Collective Action

1. Emotion and Efficacy Pathways to Normative and Non-normative Collective Action Nicole Tausch Cardiff University EASP Small Group Meeting on Resolving Societal Conflicts and Building Peace: Socio-Psychological Dynamics, 7-10 September, 2009, Jerusalem, Israel

2. Types of Collective Action • Normative vs. Non-normative(e.g., Wright, 2001; Wright et al., 1990) • Normative action: conforms to the norms of the existing social system (e.g., political participation, peaceful demonstrations) • Non-normative action: violates these rules, often illegal (e.g., sabotage, violence, terrorism) • But: doesn’t mean that these are non-normative for certain subgroups! • Constitutional vs. Extra-constitutional(e.g., Hayes & McAllister, 2001) • IRA (Northern Ireland): ‘ArmaLite and the ballot box’ strategies • Legitimate vs. illegitimate action(Martin et al., 1984) • Legal vs. Illegal • Constructive vs. destructive action(Dion, 1986; Scheepers et al., 2006)

3. Research Questions • Cycle of violence hinders building trust and resolution of conflict (e.g., Northern Ireland) • Understanding and addressing factors predictive of (support for) violence important part of conflict resolution; first step • What are the predictors of non-normative actions (vs. normative)? • Emotions: anger & contempt • Group efficacy

4. What motivates collective action? • Focus: normative action • Collective action: arises from complex interactions of structural conditions and psychological processes(Wright, 2001) • In-group disadvantage • Structural or situation/event-based • Illegitimacy (SIT, Tajfel & Turner, 1979, 1986; RDT, e.g., Crosby, 1976) • Sense of injustice of disadvantage • Emotion-based analyses (RDT/IET): • Appraisals lead to action tendencies because they arouse discrete emotions, such as anger(Mackie et al., 2000; Smith, 1993; Smith & Oritz, 2002)

5. Group Efficacy • Group efficacy (McCarthy & Zald, 1977; Martin et al., 1984) • Belief that group can solve their group-related problem by unified effort (Bandura, 1995) • Related to notion of (in)stability of in-group disadvantage in SIT • Pragmatic consideration • Dual Pathway Model (Van Zomeren, Spears & Leach, 2004) • Group-based anger and group efficacy as distinct routes to collective action • But only normative actions examined • Less clear when group members will resort to non-normative action

6. + _ Appraisals Emotions Action Tendencies Normative Collective Action Tendencies Non-normative Collective Action Tendencies Group Efficacy

7. Group Efficacy and Normative vs. Non-normative Collective Action • Resort to more extreme measures when situation hopeless • Stable low status of the in-group leads to more extreme forms of bias (outgroup derogation) (Scheepers et al., 2006) • Non-normative action when legitimate channels closed (Wright et al., 1990)

8. ++ + Appraisals Emotions Action Tendencies Injustice ++ Anger Normative Collective Action Tendencies Non-normative Collective Action Tendencies Group Efficacy

9. Anger • Constructive emotion (Fischer & Roseman, 2007) • Involves certain amount of control, greater intimacy, less dispositional attributions • Positive outcome sought by coercing change in another person’s behaviour • Hostile and antagonistic behaviours; but reconciliation in the long term

10. Contempt • ‘Other-critical’ emotion like anger(Rozin, Lowery, Imada, & Haidt, 1999) • Distinct social functions and consequences(Fischer & Roseman, 2007) • Often arises when anger is recurrent and remains unresolved (develops on top of anger) • Lack of control over the other person, less intimacy • When no reconciliation is sought • Negative and permanent changes in beliefs about another person (dispositional attributions) • Less constructive for social relationships • Dehumanization and moral exclusion of others (Leyens et al.,2000) • Feeling (morally) superior to others

11. Moral Appraisals • Group morality important for in-group evaluation (Leach et al., 2007) • Intergroup conflict often has symbolic elements • discrepancies in beliefs, values, and moral codes strongly predict hostility towards the out-group(e.g., Biernat et al., 1996; Esses et al., 1993; Sears, 1988) • Beliefs of the moral superiority of the in-group (‘ingroup virtue’ Reicher, Haslam, & Rath, 2008)and the immorality of the out-group can serve to justify action(e.g., Tetlock, 2002) • Strong link to contempt felt toward an opponent (e.g., Fischer & Roseman, 2007)

12. + + ++ ++ Appraisals Emotions Action Tendencies Injustice Anger Normative Collective Action Tendencies Moral Appraisals Contempt Non-normative Collective Action Tendencies Group Efficacy

13. Study 1: British students willingness to engage in solidarity-based collective action for change in treatment of asylum seekers(Basic model)

14. Procedure & Respondents • Online study, Cardiff University • Link sent out to participant panel and activist groups mailing lists • Sample: N=185 • 81 female • Mean age = 20.16 (SD=2.62) • Read a fictitious story about the negative treatment of an asylum seeker in the UK

15. Measures • Injustice perceptions (α = .88) • To what extent do you consider the treatment of asylum seekers in this country to be just/fair/legitimate?’ • Anger (α = .81) • To what extent do you feel angry/furious/resentful when thinking about the treatment of asylum seekers in the UK? • Efficacy (‘I think that, as a group, people campaigning for a better treatment of asylum seekers are able to improve the situation of asylum seekers in this country.’)

16. Measures – Actions • People have in the past taken a wide variety of actions in order to achieve their political goals. To what extent would you approve of the following actions aimed at improving the treatment of asylum seekers in this country? • How willing would you be to engage in the following actions to improve the treatment of asylum seekers in this country? • Scale: 9-point Likert (not at all, extremely)

17. PCA (oblique rotation) Normative (Constitutional Protest) • Sign petition • Donate to charities • Attend meetings of groups campaigning for a change in policy • Write letters to MPs • Hand out information leaflets about the cause • Participate in peaceful protest • Block a building entrance • Block a road • Sabotage, such as deleting files that contain details of failed asylum seekers destined for deportation • Trespass into an asylum seeker detention centre • Blackmail officials (e.g., government lawyers arguing for asylum seekers deportation) • Participate in violent protest (i.e., that includes vandalism and setting fires) • Damage government buildings (e.g., break windows, smash down doors) • Set fire to government buildings Non-normative, non-violent Non-normative, violent

18. .64*** .31** -.10 -.16* Appraisals Emotions Action Tendencies Injustice Normative Action Anger .44*** Non-normative action, non-violent .21** Non-normative action, non-violent Group Efficacy

19. Study 2: Protest against introduction of tuition fees in Germany • Replicate results • Go beyond anger: Contempt as a particularly destructive emotion & moral superiority as relevant appraisal (Extended model)

20. Tuition Fees in Germany • Federal ‘higher education bill’: tuition fees were prohibited • 2002: several states took legal action, education should be the sole responsibility of the states • 2005: ruling that a federal law prohibiting tuition fees is unconstitutional • Introduction of local laws that allowed tuition fees (around 500 Euro per semester) • Decisions were met with much opposition by students • Difficult to get loans • Threatens the social welfare state • Wave of student protests (2002-2009), still ongoing

22. Procedure & Respondents • Online study, University of Marburg • Link sent out to various university email lists • Sample: N=307 students • 51.8% female • Mean age = 22.78 (SD=3.40) • Wide range of subjects represented • Biology, Business, Chemistry, Ethnology, Philology, Peace studies, Geography, German, History, Law, Maths, Physics, Psychology, Education, Theology, Philosophy, Medicine, Politics, Sociology

23. Measures - Appraisals • Injustice appraisals (α = .86) • The introduction of tuition fees is unfair. • Tuition fees are socially unjust. • The introduction of tuition fees is not legitimate. • The introduction of tuition fees is justified. (-) • Moral Superiority • ‘Members of the protest movement against tuition fees are morally superior to advocates of the introduction of tuition fees.’ • Group Efficacy (α = .84) • I think that students can stop the introduction of tuition fees. • I think that students can successfully defend their rights. • Students are strong as a group and can move a lot. • I think students have already lost the fight against tuition fees. (-)

24. Measures - Emotions • Anger (α = .93) • I’m furious about the planned introduction of tuition fees. • The introduction of tuition fees angers me. • Contempt (α = .93) • I despise people who advocate tuition fees. • I detest people who advocate tuition fees.

25. Measures – Action tendencies • Action tendencies • How likely is it that you would participate in the following actions against tuition fees in the future? (1 = very unlikely, 7 = very likely)

26. Actions Protest • Discussion meetings • Plenary meetings • Writing flyers • Signing a complaint against unconstitutionality • Street theatre • Demonstrations • Boycott tuition fees • Go on strike • Disturb events • Block university buildings • Block highway • Throw stones or bottles • Arson attacks on university buildings • Arson attacks on private property of responsible persons • Attacks on police • Attacks on responsible persons Resistance Violence

27. .62*** .80*** .35*** .09* .21*** .49*** .24*** .33*** .26*** -.17** Protest Anger .59*** Perceived Injustice .25*** Resistance Contempt .48*** .35*** Moral Superiority Violence .41*** .23*** Group Efficacy χ2(70) = 141.92***, χ2/df=2.03,CFI = .98, RMSEA = .06 (p-close=.16), SRMR = .03

28. Discussion • Further theoretical development in order! • Two emotional routes to collective action: • Injustice appraisals, anger, normative action (like in previous research) • Moral superiority, contempt, non-normative action (chronic ideological route?)

29. Discussion • Group efficacy predicts both normative and non-normative collective action • But nature of effect differs for different types of action • Consistent with previous lab work (Wright et al., 1991) • Negative relation to violent action (after repeated frustration?) • Extreme actions in desperate circumstances! • Seems somewhat inconsistent with ‘rational actor model’ • Explore other functions of violence, more intermediate • Influence third parties • Provoke counter-reaction and expose opponent • Revenge

30. Study 3: The role of response efficacy in predicting support for violence among third parties How does the effectiveness of violent and non-violent resistance strategies by Palestinians against Israelis influence the attitudes of third parties toward the use of each strategy? (Reem Saab)

31. Procedure Participants: Cardiff students (study ongoing) 15-minute documentary clip about the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories Contained the manipulation of effectiveness of peaceful and violent action strategies by Palestinians (expert opinions) 2x2 design: Effectiveness of armed struggle (high/low) x Effectiveness of non-violent resistance (mass demonstrations, boycott, civil disobedience; high/low). DVs: Perceived legitimacy of attacks on Israeli settlers and attacks on Israeli civilians; Support for attacks on Israeli soldiers, settlers and civilians

32. Perceived legitimacy of violent attacks on settlers

33. Perceived legitimacy of attacks on civilians

34. Support for attacks on soldiers

35. Support for attacks on settlers

36. Support for attacks on civilians

37. Discussion • When groups are in a desperate circumstances (nothing to lose)… • Low perceived group efficacy • Low perceived response efficacy (of non-violence and even violence) • …then more extreme measures favored (or less opposed) • ‘Crushing’ resistance won’t necessarily reduce violence, likely to incite even more violence (Pratto et al., 2009) • Increase efficacy • open up legitimate channels for engagement • empowerment of disadvantaged groups • Threatening to advantaged groups, reluctant to let go of power

38. Julia Becker, University of Marburg Russell Spears, Cardiff University Oliver Christ, University of Marburg Reem Saab, Cardiff University Acknowledgements