Explaining Radical Group Behavior: Developing Emotion and Efficacy Routes to Normative and Nonnormative Collective Action
Explaining Radical Group Behavior: Developing Emotion and Efficacy Routes to Normative and Nonnormative Collective Action
复制标题
DOI：
10.1037/a0022728
复制
发表时间：
2011-07-01
影响因子：
7.6
通讯作者：
Siddiqui, Roomana N.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Tausch, Nicole;Becker, Julia C.;Siddiqui, Roomana N.
最近的集体行动模型区分了两种不同的途径：一种是情绪途径，即对不公正的愤怒激励行动;另一种是效能途径，即相信问题可以集体解决，从而增加了群体成员采取行动的可能性（货车Zomeren，Spears，Fischer，& Leach，2004）。然而，支持这一模式的研究完全集中在参与示威等相对规范的行动上。我们认为，情绪、效能和行动之间的关系对于更极端的、非规范的行动是不同的，并提出：（a）非规范的行动通常是由低效能感驱动的;（B）与愤怒不同，蔑视意味着心理上的疏远和缺乏和解的意图，它预示着非规范的行动。这些想法进行了测试，在3项调查研究，探讨学生抗议学费在德国（N = 332），印度穆斯林的行动支持有关的ingroup劣势（N = 156），英国穆斯林的反应，英国的外交政策（N = 466）。结果普遍支持的预测，并表明：（a）愤怒是密切相关的规范性行动，但整体无关或不太密切相关的非规范性行动，（B）蔑视是无关或负相关的规范性行动，但显着积极预测非规范性行动，（c）效能是正相关的规范性行动和负相关的非规范性行动。这些研究结果的理解和处理极端的群体间的现象，如恐怖主义的影响进行了讨论。
A recent model of collective action distinguishes 2 distinct pathways: an emotional pathway whereby anger in response to injustice motivates action and an efficacy pathway where the belief that issues can be solved collectively increases the likelihood that group members take action (van Zomeren, Spears, Fischer, & Leach, 2004). Research supporting this model has, however, focused entirely on relatively normative actions such as participating in demonstrations. We argue that the relations between emotions, efficacy, and action differ for more extreme, nonnormative actions and propose (a) that nonnormative actions are often driven by a sense of low efficacy and (b) that contempt, which, unlike anger, entails psychological distancing and a lack of reconciliatory intentions, predicts nonnormative action. These ideas were tested in 3 survey studies examining student protests against tuition fees in Germany (N = 332), Indian Muslims' action support in relation to ingroup disadvantage (N = 156), and British Muslims' responses to British foreign policy (N = 466). Results were generally supportive of predictions and indicated that (a) anger was strongly related to normative action but overall unrelated or less strongly related to nonnormative action, (b) contempt was either unrelated or negatively related to normative action but significantly positively predicted nonnormative action, and (c) efficacy was positively related to normative action and negatively related to nonnormative action. The implications of these findings for understanding and dealing with extreme intergroup phenomena such as terrorism are discussed.