The Promotion And Inhibition Of Collective Action

Collective action which is often aimed at challenging group-based discrimination or group disadvantage or at ending or preventing an injustice occurs at any age. Throughout history, collective action has played a critical role in the processes of social change, but sometimes it may lead to the destruction of social stability. Therefore, it has always been a hotspot in the field of sociology and psychology.In past collective action literature, scholars concentrated on the perceptions of the in-group in driving collective action, mainly based on Relative Deprivation Theory, Resource Mobilization Theory, and Social Identity Theory. In addition, the variables involved were not rich and the levels of variables were relatively simple. This present research was based on Ambivalent Prejudice Theory and Intergroup Contact Theory, broke the "in-group"-oriented convention, and innovatively explored the promotion and inhibition mechanisms of collective action from the perspectives of out-group and inter-group. Moreover, this study introduced new variables and extended the levels of the traditional variables to achieve integration of inter-group level, group level and individual level variables.This study consisted of seven researches on three parts in order to build the social psychological processes to answer what motivates people to partake in collective action (or demotivates them from doing so).The first part was the preliminary study (including Study 1). Study 1 used questionnaire to investigate the impacts of prejudice perception and intergroup contact on collective action. The aim of this study was to build a general model, to provide an empirical basis for further investigating the promotion and inhibition mechanisms.The second part was based on the perspective of out-group, concentrated on the role of ambivalent prejudice of out-group who were related to group disadvantage, in order to prove that out-group level variables can also affect people to coping with collective disadvantages. This part included Study 2. Study3 and Study 4. mainly to answer three questions:WHAT are the different effects of hostile and benevolent forms of prejudice on collective action? HOW to realize the social psychological process? And WHEN the effects will exist? We answered the first two questions through two study. Study 2 and Study 3, using experimental research paradigm, respectively revealed the effects of ambivalent sexism and ambivalent prejudice to test a model for understanding how benevolent prejudice undermined, whereas hostile prejudice promoted, social change. To answer the third question, Study 4 explored the moderating effect of ingroup identity.The third part was based on the perspective of inter-group, discussed the impact of intergroup contact on the advantaged and disadvantaged group members’ participating in collective action to coping with group inequality. The third part also included three studies to solve three problems:WHAT are the roles of positive and negative contacts played on the advantaged or disadvantaged group members" participating in collective action? HOW to realize the social psychological process? And WHEN, the contrary relationship between positive contact with members of the advantaged group and the maintenance of a strong collective action orientation need not be inevitable. To answer the "what" and "how", Study 5 and Study 6 used the imaging intergroup contact paradigm to investigate contacting (positive vs. negative) with disadvantaged or advantaged group members, undermined or promoted collective action. Study 7 introduced two moderators which highlighted the fundamental roles of in-group and out-group perceptions of the legitimacy of intergroup inequality on disadvantaged group collective action, so as to answer the "when" question.Through the seven studies above, we got the following results:(1) Exposing participants to benevolent prejudice decreased their engagement in collective action, whereas exposure to hostile prejudice increased it. (2) Identification with the typical in-group was found to moderate the effects. For high but not low identifiers, benevolent prejudice inhibited, whereas hostile prejudice promoted collective action. (3) Positive contact promoted advantaged group members participating in collective action to help disadvantaged groups, whereas undermined disadvantaged group members’collective action. (4) The attitudes of in-group and out-group affected the inhibitive effect of positive contact to individuals from disadvantaged group. Results revealed that positive cross-group contact undermined public collective action among the disadvantaged when the out-group and in-group described the intergroup inequality as legitimate. In contrast, when they both described the intergroup inequality as illegitimate, it promoted participation in public collective action among the disadvantaged.