集体行动中的集体认同:来自2020年夏季BLM抗议的证据

IF 2.3 Q1 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Frontiers in Political Science Pub Date : 2023-07-18 DOI:10.3389/fpos.2023.1185633
Claudia Kann, Sarah Hashash, Zachary C. Steinert-Threlkeld, R. Alvarez
{"title":"集体行动中的集体认同:来自2020年夏季BLM抗议的证据","authors":"Claudia Kann, Sarah Hashash, Zachary C. Steinert-Threlkeld, R. Alvarez","doi":"10.3389/fpos.2023.1185633","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Does collective identity drive protest participation? A long line of research argues that collective identity can explain why protesters do not free ride and how specific movement strategies are chosen. Quantitative studies, however, are inconsistent in defining and operationalizing collective identity, making it difficult to understand under what conditions and to what extent collective identity explains participation. In this paper, we clearly differentiate between interest and collective identity to isolate the individual level signals of collective action. We argue that these quantities have been conflated in previous research, causing over estimation of the role of collective identity in protest behavior. Using a novel dataset of Twitter users who participated in Black Lives Matter protests during the summer of 2020, we find that contingent on participating in a protest, individuals have higher levels of interest in BLM on the day of and the days following the protest. This effect diminishes over time. There is little observed effect of participation on subsequent collective identity. In addition, higher levels of interest in the protest increases an individuals chance of participating in a protest, while levels of collective identity do not have a significant effect. These findings suggest that collective identity plays a weaker role in driving collective action than previously suggested. We claim that this overestimation is a byproduct of the misidentification of interest as identity.","PeriodicalId":34431,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Political Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Collective identity in collective action: evidence from the 2020 summer BLM protests\",\"authors\":\"Claudia Kann, Sarah Hashash, Zachary C. Steinert-Threlkeld, R. Alvarez\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/fpos.2023.1185633\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Does collective identity drive protest participation? A long line of research argues that collective identity can explain why protesters do not free ride and how specific movement strategies are chosen. Quantitative studies, however, are inconsistent in defining and operationalizing collective identity, making it difficult to understand under what conditions and to what extent collective identity explains participation. In this paper, we clearly differentiate between interest and collective identity to isolate the individual level signals of collective action. We argue that these quantities have been conflated in previous research, causing over estimation of the role of collective identity in protest behavior. Using a novel dataset of Twitter users who participated in Black Lives Matter protests during the summer of 2020, we find that contingent on participating in a protest, individuals have higher levels of interest in BLM on the day of and the days following the protest. This effect diminishes over time. There is little observed effect of participation on subsequent collective identity. In addition, higher levels of interest in the protest increases an individuals chance of participating in a protest, while levels of collective identity do not have a significant effect. These findings suggest that collective identity plays a weaker role in driving collective action than previously suggested. We claim that this overestimation is a byproduct of the misidentification of interest as identity.\",\"PeriodicalId\":34431,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in Political Science\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in Political Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2023.1185633\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Political Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2023.1185633","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

集体认同是否推动了抗议的参与?一长串的研究认为,集体认同可以解释为什么抗议者不搭便车,以及如何选择具体的运动策略。然而,定量研究在定义和实施集体认同方面是不一致的,因此很难理解集体认同在什么条件下和在多大程度上解释了参与。在本文中,我们明确区分了利益和集体认同,以隔离集体行动的个体层面信号。我们认为,在之前的研究中,这些数量被混为一谈,导致对集体认同在抗议行为中的作用的高估。使用2020年夏天参加“黑人的命也是命”抗议活动的Twitter用户的新数据集,我们发现,在参加抗议活动的情况下,个人在抗议活动当天和之后的几天对BLM的兴趣水平更高。这种影响会随着时间的推移而减弱。几乎没有观察到参与对随后的集体认同的影响。此外,对抗议的较高兴趣水平增加了个人参与抗议的机会,而集体认同水平没有显著影响。这些发现表明,集体认同在推动集体行动方面的作用比之前认为的要弱。我们认为,这种高估是错误地将兴趣视为身份的副产品。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Collective identity in collective action: evidence from the 2020 summer BLM protests
Does collective identity drive protest participation? A long line of research argues that collective identity can explain why protesters do not free ride and how specific movement strategies are chosen. Quantitative studies, however, are inconsistent in defining and operationalizing collective identity, making it difficult to understand under what conditions and to what extent collective identity explains participation. In this paper, we clearly differentiate between interest and collective identity to isolate the individual level signals of collective action. We argue that these quantities have been conflated in previous research, causing over estimation of the role of collective identity in protest behavior. Using a novel dataset of Twitter users who participated in Black Lives Matter protests during the summer of 2020, we find that contingent on participating in a protest, individuals have higher levels of interest in BLM on the day of and the days following the protest. This effect diminishes over time. There is little observed effect of participation on subsequent collective identity. In addition, higher levels of interest in the protest increases an individuals chance of participating in a protest, while levels of collective identity do not have a significant effect. These findings suggest that collective identity plays a weaker role in driving collective action than previously suggested. We claim that this overestimation is a byproduct of the misidentification of interest as identity.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Frontiers in Political Science
Frontiers in Political Science Social Sciences-Political Science and International Relations
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
135
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊最新文献
Human involvement in autonomous decision-making systems. Lessons learned from three case studies in aviation, social care and road vehicles Deciphering the maritime diplomatic properties of Malaysia's oil and gas explorations in the South China Sea Dimensions of cultural sustainability—Local adaptation, adaptive capacity and social resilience Neurorights as reconceptualized human rights Interactions among national and supranational identities: mobilizing the independence movement in Scotland
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1