This work addresses collective action in the context of a social movement facing police repression in a democratic country. The movement studied was carried out in a region of southern Chile, had a very high citizen participation and deployed normative and non-normative actions. We aim to understand why people decided to participate and how they came to consider violent action as a legitimate option. We use a mixed methods approach. In a quantitative study we compare participation in normative and non-normative actions, and find they factor together as part of the same action repertoire, making it possible to speak of a continuum of participation instead of different types. We also replicate key findings of the SIMCA model, with protest participation motivated directly by anger and efficacy, but also by positive emotions. In a qualitative study we found similar results and draw out new data highlighting the relevance of the experience of repression in invoking a need for radical action and creating social cohesion among protestors.
{"title":"Normative and non-normative collective action facing repression in a democratic context: A mixed study in a Chilean social movement","authors":"Claudia Zúñiga, Rodrigo A. Asún, W. Louis","doi":"10.5964/jspp.7973","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.7973","url":null,"abstract":"This work addresses collective action in the context of a social movement facing police repression in a democratic country. The movement studied was carried out in a region of southern Chile, had a very high citizen participation and deployed normative and non-normative actions. We aim to understand why people decided to participate and how they came to consider violent action as a legitimate option. We use a mixed methods approach. In a quantitative study we compare participation in normative and non-normative actions, and find they factor together as part of the same action repertoire, making it possible to speak of a continuum of participation instead of different types. We also replicate key findings of the SIMCA model, with protest participation motivated directly by anger and efficacy, but also by positive emotions. In a qualitative study we found similar results and draw out new data highlighting the relevance of the experience of repression in invoking a need for radical action and creating social cohesion among protestors.","PeriodicalId":16973,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social and Political Psychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2023-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43521861","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Policies toward undocumented immigrants have fueled political debates recently. Since policies are multidimensional, I proposed examining support for two types of policies: punishing or helping. The Theory of Dyadic Morality (Schein & Gray, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868317698288), above other theoretical approaches, was the most fitting to analyze these divergent perspectives. Based on the typecast model, I hypothesized that agent typecast beliefs would predict punishing and patient (victim) beliefs would predict helping. Thus, I expected the agent effect to be mediated through disgust and anger and the victim effect to be mediated through empathy-related emotions. In Study 1 participants provided open-ended responses regarding their beliefs about undocumented immigrants, which were coded for agent and victim themes. Viewing undocumented immigrants as agents of harm was associated with support for punishing policies, and this link was mediated by elevated disgust/anger. Study 2 replicated these Study 1 findings and, in addition, found that perceiving undocumented immigrants as victims was associated with support for helping policies. This link was mediated by increased empathy-related emotions. Implications for ongoing policy debates were discussed.
{"title":"Moral typecasting explains evaluations of undocumented immigrants","authors":"R. Steele","doi":"10.5964/jspp.5617","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.5617","url":null,"abstract":"Policies toward undocumented immigrants have fueled political debates recently. Since policies are multidimensional, I proposed examining support for two types of policies: punishing or helping. The Theory of Dyadic Morality (Schein & Gray, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868317698288), above other theoretical approaches, was the most fitting to analyze these divergent perspectives. Based on the typecast model, I hypothesized that agent typecast beliefs would predict punishing and patient (victim) beliefs would predict helping. Thus, I expected the agent effect to be mediated through disgust and anger and the victim effect to be mediated through empathy-related emotions. In Study 1 participants provided open-ended responses regarding their beliefs about undocumented immigrants, which were coded for agent and victim themes. Viewing undocumented immigrants as agents of harm was associated with support for punishing policies, and this link was mediated by elevated disgust/anger. Study 2 replicated these Study 1 findings and, in addition, found that perceiving undocumented immigrants as victims was associated with support for helping policies. This link was mediated by increased empathy-related emotions. Implications for ongoing policy debates were discussed.","PeriodicalId":16973,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social and Political Psychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2023-07-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49182155","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Far-right collective action has previously been explained in terms of collective grievances. However, this does not adequately explain mobilisations after ingroup-relevant successes. Based on the broader collective action literature, we suggest that analysing experiences of subjective power before and during collective action may significantly complement existing explanations of far-right mobilisations. We used secondary data (predominantly videos from YouTube and ProPublica) from the 2017 Charlottesville “Unite the Right” rally and the 2021 Washington Capitol insurrection to qualitatively examine the extent to which attendees reported experiencing collective psychological empowerment alongside the perception of collective grievances. The events were connected by the effort to unify the far-right yet were shaped by different immediate contexts. We find that at Charlottesville, attendees arrived already feeling empowered and gained further empowerment from the rally itself. While the Capitol insurrection seemed to be driven by collective grievances, there were some indicators of empowerment experiences mainly deriving from the event itself. Our analysis has implications for disempowering far-right collective action.
{"title":"The role of subjective power dynamics in far-right collective action: The “Unite the Right” rally and the Capitol insurrection","authors":"Carina Hoerst, J. Drury","doi":"10.5964/jspp.9951","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.9951","url":null,"abstract":"Far-right collective action has previously been explained in terms of collective grievances. However, this does not adequately explain mobilisations after ingroup-relevant successes. Based on the broader collective action literature, we suggest that analysing experiences of subjective power before and during collective action may significantly complement existing explanations of far-right mobilisations. We used secondary data (predominantly videos from YouTube and ProPublica) from the 2017 Charlottesville “Unite the Right” rally and the 2021 Washington Capitol insurrection to qualitatively examine the extent to which attendees reported experiencing collective psychological empowerment alongside the perception of collective grievances. The events were connected by the effort to unify the far-right yet were shaped by different immediate contexts. We find that at Charlottesville, attendees arrived already feeling empowered and gained further empowerment from the rally itself. While the Capitol insurrection seemed to be driven by collective grievances, there were some indicators of empowerment experiences mainly deriving from the event itself. Our analysis has implications for disempowering far-right collective action.","PeriodicalId":16973,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social and Political Psychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2023-06-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43705585","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Tal Orian Harel, Eric Shuman, Ifat Maoz, M. Balmas, E. Halperin
Cross-party violence – violence between opposing partisans – is a growing concern worldwide. Understanding the predictors of the legitimization of violence against political opponents is thus becoming a vital goal. In this work, we propose two potential explanatory frameworks: affective polarization and low non-violent group efficacy. The first reflects an affective motivation to harm the out-party, while the latter reflects an instrumental motivation to deploy violence. Furthermore, while the former is frequently suggested in scholarly work as a cause for such violence, it has so far been backed only by limited empirical support. On the other hand, the latter is hardly examined in the context of interactions between opposing partisans. We tested the relationship of the two explanatory frameworks with the legitimization of cross-party violence using public opinion surveys in two real-world contexts: in 2020, in Israel (N = 500) and in the US (N = 631). Results from a regression analysis provide support for the instrumental explanation but not for the affective one. We discuss the theoretical implications of our findings for the research of affective polarization, and potential practical implications for attempts to reduce cross-party violence.
{"title":"Examining real-world legitimization of cross-party violence through two explanatory frameworks: Affective polarization and low group efficacy","authors":"Tal Orian Harel, Eric Shuman, Ifat Maoz, M. Balmas, E. Halperin","doi":"10.5964/jspp.10007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.10007","url":null,"abstract":"Cross-party violence – violence between opposing partisans – is a growing concern worldwide. Understanding the predictors of the legitimization of violence against political opponents is thus becoming a vital goal. In this work, we propose two potential explanatory frameworks: affective polarization and low non-violent group efficacy. The first reflects an affective motivation to harm the out-party, while the latter reflects an instrumental motivation to deploy violence. Furthermore, while the former is frequently suggested in scholarly work as a cause for such violence, it has so far been backed only by limited empirical support. On the other hand, the latter is hardly examined in the context of interactions between opposing partisans. We tested the relationship of the two explanatory frameworks with the legitimization of cross-party violence using public opinion surveys in two real-world contexts: in 2020, in Israel (N = 500) and in the US (N = 631). Results from a regression analysis provide support for the instrumental explanation but not for the affective one. We discuss the theoretical implications of our findings for the research of affective polarization, and potential practical implications for attempts to reduce cross-party violence.","PeriodicalId":16973,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social and Political Psychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2023-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44820433","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Cristina Pradillo-Caimari, Andrés Di Masso Tarditti, Eleni Andreouli
This paper examines the Catalan independentist movement understood as a paradigmatic case of secessionist politics in a European context. Drawing on recent rhetorical-psychological studies on citizenship and nationhood, we explore how constructions of citizenship and national identity interweave to shape, warrant, and contest opposing arguments about Catalan independence and Spanish sovereignty. We conducted a discursive-rhetorical analysis of thirty open-ended interviews and one focus group with Catalan residents that held different positions towards independence. The analysis shows that arguments for independence construct secession demands as a citizenship right that, in turn, assumes different versions of the Catalan national community. Arguments against independence reify the Spanish national identity by constructing it as a political community where all citizens have the same rights. Both argumentative poles position “the nation” as a core element in political citizenship discourses. Specifically, we argue that a diversity of citizenship formulations stressing democratic rights, practices, and political traditions, rhetorically work both to support and to challenge otherwise explicitly ethnic, cultural, and civic understandings of nationhood. The article advances a historically situated approach of citizenship and national categories attending to their specific rhetorical mobilisations in current independentist conflicts.
{"title":"On (national) citizenship and (de)politicised nations: Everyday discourses about the Catalan secessionist movement","authors":"Cristina Pradillo-Caimari, Andrés Di Masso Tarditti, Eleni Andreouli","doi":"10.5964/jspp.9275","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.9275","url":null,"abstract":"This paper examines the Catalan independentist movement understood as a paradigmatic case of secessionist politics in a European context. Drawing on recent rhetorical-psychological studies on citizenship and nationhood, we explore how constructions of citizenship and national identity interweave to shape, warrant, and contest opposing arguments about Catalan independence and Spanish sovereignty. We conducted a discursive-rhetorical analysis of thirty open-ended interviews and one focus group with Catalan residents that held different positions towards independence. The analysis shows that arguments for independence construct secession demands as a citizenship right that, in turn, assumes different versions of the Catalan national community. Arguments against independence reify the Spanish national identity by constructing it as a political community where all citizens have the same rights. Both argumentative poles position “the nation” as a core element in political citizenship discourses. Specifically, we argue that a diversity of citizenship formulations stressing democratic rights, practices, and political traditions, rhetorically work both to support and to challenge otherwise explicitly ethnic, cultural, and civic understandings of nationhood. The article advances a historically situated approach of citizenship and national categories attending to their specific rhetorical mobilisations in current independentist conflicts.","PeriodicalId":16973,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social and Political Psychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2023-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49046171","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Much recent work has focused on Americans’ positive and negative feelings toward their own and opposing political parties. However, there is neither a consensus on how to model such partisan affect, nor a detailed understanding of its consequences for political participation. This work addressed these two gaps by first, empirically examining how many dimensions best characterize American partisan affect. Study 1A used contemporary, categorical approaches to factor analyses across an extensive set of partisan affect items from the Pew American Trends Panel to test two competing hypotheses: that (1A-1) partisan affect is one-dimensional, or that (1A-2) partisan affect is two-dimensional. Results suggested support for Hypothesis 1A-2; two dimensions of partisan affect covered inparty affinity and outparty animosity. Second, Study 1B investigated the predictive validity of different aspects of partisan affect in terms of discrete forms of political participation. Study 1B had three competing hypotheses implied by prior partisan affect literature: that (1B-1) outparty animosity (but not inparty affinity) would predict most forms of behavior, that (1B-2) outparty animosity would predict higher-cost forms of behavior, and inparty affinity would predict lower-cost forms of behavior, or that (1B-3) the combination/interaction of outparty animosity and inparty affinity would predict most forms of behavior. Results of logistic regressions suggested partial support for Hypothesis 1B-1 and direct support for Hypothesis 1B-2. Outparty animosity predicted more medium-cost forms of political participation, whereas inparty affinity predicted lower-cost forms of political participation. Implications are discussed for theory, the measurement of partisan affect, and the prediction of political participation.
{"title":"The dual nature of American partisan affect: Examining the impact of inparty affinity and outparty animosity on unique forms of political behavior","authors":"Adi Wiezel, John K. Wagner","doi":"10.5964/jspp.8135","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.8135","url":null,"abstract":"Much recent work has focused on Americans’ positive and negative feelings toward their own and opposing political parties. However, there is neither a consensus on how to model such partisan affect, nor a detailed understanding of its consequences for political participation. This work addressed these two gaps by first, empirically examining how many dimensions best characterize American partisan affect. Study 1A used contemporary, categorical approaches to factor analyses across an extensive set of partisan affect items from the Pew American Trends Panel to test two competing hypotheses: that (1A-1) partisan affect is one-dimensional, or that (1A-2) partisan affect is two-dimensional. Results suggested support for Hypothesis 1A-2; two dimensions of partisan affect covered inparty affinity and outparty animosity. Second, Study 1B investigated the predictive validity of different aspects of partisan affect in terms of discrete forms of political participation. Study 1B had three competing hypotheses implied by prior partisan affect literature: that (1B-1) outparty animosity (but not inparty affinity) would predict most forms of behavior, that (1B-2) outparty animosity would predict higher-cost forms of behavior, and inparty affinity would predict lower-cost forms of behavior, or that (1B-3) the combination/interaction of outparty animosity and inparty affinity would predict most forms of behavior. Results of logistic regressions suggested partial support for Hypothesis 1B-1 and direct support for Hypothesis 1B-2. Outparty animosity predicted more medium-cost forms of political participation, whereas inparty affinity predicted lower-cost forms of political participation. Implications are discussed for theory, the measurement of partisan affect, and the prediction of political participation.","PeriodicalId":16973,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social and Political Psychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2023-06-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42127621","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
COVID-19 spawned many bogus beliefs (e.g., that it could be treated by ingesting household cleaners) and induced resistance to established facts (e.g., that it could be managed by vaccines). We tested whether transitory distress and insufficient psychosocial resources explain these maladaptive perspectives. According to the Resources and Perception Model (RPM; Harber et al., 2011, https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023995), distress distorts perception and judgment, but psychosocial resources (e.g., social support, self-esteem, purpose) mitigate such distortions by buffering distress. Two cross-sectional studies of COVID-19 beliefs fit within the RPM framework. General life distress was related to endorsing bogus beliefs and denying facts. COVID-specific distress was also related to bogus beliefs but not to denial of facts. Resources, in contrast, were associated with fewer bogus beliefs and with greater acceptance of facts. As per RPM, distress mediated the relation between resources and bogus beliefs. Additionally, rejection of CDC recommendations and adoption of survivalist strategies were positively associated with distress and negatively associated with resources. All results were retained even after controlling for mood and individual differences including political ideology and news sources.
{"title":"Fevered reasoning: How heightened distress and lowered resources relate to COVID-19 beliefs","authors":"K. Harber, Valeria M. Vila","doi":"10.5964/jspp.9267","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.9267","url":null,"abstract":"COVID-19 spawned many bogus beliefs (e.g., that it could be treated by ingesting household cleaners) and induced resistance to established facts (e.g., that it could be managed by vaccines). We tested whether transitory distress and insufficient psychosocial resources explain these maladaptive perspectives. According to the Resources and Perception Model (RPM; Harber et al., 2011, https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023995), distress distorts perception and judgment, but psychosocial resources (e.g., social support, self-esteem, purpose) mitigate such distortions by buffering distress. Two cross-sectional studies of COVID-19 beliefs fit within the RPM framework. General life distress was related to endorsing bogus beliefs and denying facts. COVID-specific distress was also related to bogus beliefs but not to denial of facts. Resources, in contrast, were associated with fewer bogus beliefs and with greater acceptance of facts. As per RPM, distress mediated the relation between resources and bogus beliefs. Additionally, rejection of CDC recommendations and adoption of survivalist strategies were positively associated with distress and negatively associated with resources. All results were retained even after controlling for mood and individual differences including political ideology and news sources.","PeriodicalId":16973,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social and Political Psychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2023-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48529034","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Damilola Makanju, Andrew G. Livingstone, Joseph Sweetman
Group members’ appraisals of their in-group’s collective history have been found to shape their engagement with the in-group and its collective goals. We add to this research by examining the complexity and dimensionality of how group members appraise collective history, and how different forms of appraisals relate to different forms of in-group engagement. We do so by (1) outlining four key dimensions – richness, clarity, valence and subjective importance – of how an in-group’s collective history can be appraised, and (2) examining how these appraisal dimensions relate to group members’ engagement with the in-group. Focussing on the African in-group category, we tested these ideas using a qualitative, essay writing approach. Analysis of responses (N = 33) indicated varied use of each of these dimensions of collective history appraisal, and that they relate to in-group engagement in differing ways. Two specific rhetorical strategies were identified: deploying the in-group’s history as a contrast; and deploying the in-group’s history as an inspiration. When collective history was appraised as rich, complex, negatively-valenced and unimportant, it was characterised as something from which the in-group should break away (history-as-contrast). Conversely, when collective history was appraised as rich, complex, positively-valenced and important, history was characterised as something to be used as a resource for the in-group (history-as-inspiration). Our findings build a fuller and more nuanced picture of how collective history shapes in-group engagement in a non-western setting.
{"title":"How group members appraise collective history: Appraisal dimensions of collective history and their role in in-group engagement","authors":"Damilola Makanju, Andrew G. Livingstone, Joseph Sweetman","doi":"10.5964/jspp.6355","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.6355","url":null,"abstract":"<p xmlns=\"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/JATS1\">Group members’ appraisals of their in-group’s collective history have been found to shape their engagement with the in-group and its collective goals. We add to this research by examining the complexity and dimensionality of how group members appraise collective history, and how different forms of appraisals relate to different forms of in-group engagement. We do so by (1) outlining four key dimensions – richness, clarity, valence and subjective importance – of how an in-group’s collective history can be appraised, and (2) examining how these appraisal dimensions relate to group members’ engagement with the in-group. Focussing on the African in-group category, we tested these ideas using a qualitative, essay writing approach. Analysis of responses (N = 33) indicated varied use of each of these dimensions of collective history appraisal, and that they relate to in-group engagement in differing ways. Two specific rhetorical strategies were identified: deploying the in-group’s history as a contrast; and deploying the in-group’s history as an inspiration. When collective history was appraised as rich, complex, negatively-valenced and unimportant, it was characterised as something from which the in-group should break away (history-as-contrast). Conversely, when collective history was appraised as rich, complex, positively-valenced and important, history was characterised as something to be used as a resource for the in-group (history-as-inspiration). Our findings build a fuller and more nuanced picture of how collective history shapes in-group engagement in a non-western setting.","PeriodicalId":16973,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social and Political Psychology","volume":"37 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135493375","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Damilola Makanju, Andrew G. Livingstone, Joseph Sweetman
Group members’ appraisals of their in-group’s collective history have been found to shape their engagement with the in-group, in terms of identification and willingness to work towards group goals. However, previous research has not examined the complexity and dimensionality of how collective history is appraised by group members, or how different forms of appraisals relate to different forms of in-group engagement. Our paper addresses this shortcoming by (1) outlining four key dimensions – richness, clarity, valence and subjective importance – of how an in-group’s collective history can be appraised, and (2) examining how these appraisal dimensions relate to group members’ engagement with the in-group. Focussing on the African in-group category, we tested these ideas using a qualitative – essay writing – approach. Analysis of responses (N = 33) indicated varied use of each of these dimensions of collective history appraisal, and that they relate to in-group engagement in differing ways. Two specific rhetorical strategies were identified: deploying the in-group’s history as a contrast; and deploying the in-group’s history as an inspiration. When collective history was appraised as rich, complex, negatively-valenced and unimportant, it was characterised as something from which the in-group should break away (i.e., history-as-contrast). Conversely, when collective history was appraised as rich, complex, positively-valenced and important, history was characterised as something to be used as a resource for the in-group (i.e., history-as-inspiration). Our findings build a fuller and more nuanced picture of how collective history shapes in-group engagement in a non-western setting.
{"title":"How group members appraise collective history: Appraisal dimensions of collective history and their role in in-group engagement","authors":"Damilola Makanju, Andrew G. Livingstone, Joseph Sweetman","doi":"10.31234/osf.io/p4rxj","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/p4rxj","url":null,"abstract":"Group members’ appraisals of their in-group’s collective history have been found to shape their engagement with the in-group, in terms of identification and willingness to work towards group goals. However, previous research has not examined the complexity and dimensionality of how collective history is appraised by group members, or how different forms of appraisals relate to different forms of in-group engagement. Our paper addresses this shortcoming by (1) outlining four key dimensions – richness, clarity, valence and subjective importance – of how an in-group’s collective history can be appraised, and (2) examining how these appraisal dimensions relate to group members’ engagement with the in-group. Focussing on the African in-group category, we tested these ideas using a qualitative – essay writing – approach. Analysis of responses (N = 33) indicated varied use of each of these dimensions of collective history appraisal, and that they relate to in-group engagement in differing ways. Two specific rhetorical strategies were identified: deploying the in-group’s history as a contrast; and deploying the in-group’s history as an inspiration. When collective history was appraised as rich, complex, negatively-valenced and unimportant, it was characterised as something from which the in-group should break away (i.e., history-as-contrast). Conversely, when collective history was appraised as rich, complex, positively-valenced and important, history was characterised as something to be used as a resource for the in-group (i.e., history-as-inspiration). Our findings build a fuller and more nuanced picture of how collective history shapes in-group engagement in a non-western setting.","PeriodicalId":16973,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social and Political Psychology","volume":"54 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2023-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41246054","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Anarchism signifies the actions taken to bring about a fairer, more equal, non-hierarchical, and democratic society, one that exists without State coercion or domination. Although community psychology has engaged with some anarchist practices, such as mutual aid, the discipline has had little explicit or direct engagement with anarchism’s broader project of sociopolitical organization, with a notable exception. Almost fifty years ago, Seymour Sarason argued for what he called the anarchist insight, urging community psychologists to be wary of how they interact with oppressive State apparatuses that cause considerable psychological damage within communities. In this article, I draw on Sarason’s conception of the anarchist insight as an entry point into what I prefer to think of as the insights of anarchism. The insights of anarchism, I posit, are the knowledges derived from the fragments of anarchism that already exist in communities. The task of community psychologists concerned with the insights of anarchism is to work with people to communicate, strengthen, and make connections between these different fragments. Drawing from my own work, I examine how residents from a low-income community produced and screened a participatory documentary film that connected the everyday anarchism of a community garden to social movement organizing, where the role of the State was intensely debated. I conclude by considering some of the ways by which future community psychology work can consolidate the insights of anarchism.
{"title":"Returning community psychology to the insights of anarchism: Fragments and prefiguration","authors":"Nick Malherbe","doi":"10.5964/jspp.9385","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.9385","url":null,"abstract":"Anarchism signifies the actions taken to bring about a fairer, more equal, non-hierarchical, and democratic society, one that exists without State coercion or domination. Although community psychology has engaged with some anarchist practices, such as mutual aid, the discipline has had little explicit or direct engagement with anarchism’s broader project of sociopolitical organization, with a notable exception. Almost fifty years ago, Seymour Sarason argued for what he called the anarchist insight, urging community psychologists to be wary of how they interact with oppressive State apparatuses that cause considerable psychological damage within communities. In this article, I draw on Sarason’s conception of the anarchist insight as an entry point into what I prefer to think of as the insights of anarchism. The insights of anarchism, I posit, are the knowledges derived from the fragments of anarchism that already exist in communities. The task of community psychologists concerned with the insights of anarchism is to work with people to communicate, strengthen, and make connections between these different fragments. Drawing from my own work, I examine how residents from a low-income community produced and screened a participatory documentary film that connected the everyday anarchism of a community garden to social movement organizing, where the role of the State was intensely debated. I conclude by considering some of the ways by which future community psychology work can consolidate the insights of anarchism.","PeriodicalId":16973,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social and Political Psychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2023-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47958985","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：