Lay theories are theories that one uses to make sense of their everyday life. We designed a study to investigate how two dimensions of social progress – as being stable or reversible and continuous or abrupt – influences one’s decision to take part in collective action. We hypothesized (1) that participants who consider social progress as an irreversible process will be less willing to engage in collective action than those who regard social progress as reversible; (2) that for those who believe that social progress is irreversible, exposure to an example of previously successful social progress will decrease the willingness to contribute to collective action in the same domain; (3) that for those who believe that social progress happens in grand, discrete steps, exposure to an example of successful social progress will decrease their willingness to contribute to collective action in the same domain. We exposed half of the participants to the text that described an example of social progress. Then, we asked them questions about attitudes towards social progress and their willingness to contribute to it. At the end, we exposed them to leaflets that described how they could contribute to collective action and told them they could take any number they want for themselves and to distribute among their friends. We used a number of leaflets as a behavioural measure of their willingness to engage in collective action. During data analysis, a third factor emerged, which we labelled “time”. This factor is a perception of social progress as lengthy versus quick. None of our hypotheses were supported. Yet, an unexpected finding was that those who considered progress as a lengthy process were more likely to engage in collective action. The reasons for the obtained findings, as well as limitations and directions for further research are discussed.
What could motivate you to take part in the collective action? Would your answer be the same today as ten years ago? Whatever your answer is, if you think it depends on the situation in the world, you might be wrong. As research shows, people tend to be naïve realists about what causes their belifes and behaviour. For example, people do not always take self-change into account when rendering judgments of world change, and that even when they do, they often do not correct for the self-change (Eibach, Libby, & Gilovich, 2003). Thus, it might be the change in you and your beliefs that would motivate you to take part in the collective action at one, but not the other, point of your life. Yet, the question is under which conditions you are more likely to join collective action. This topic has received much research, but many aspects have not been looked at yet. Thus, the aim of the present research is to extend the findings on this topic.
Collective action has always been fundamental to the progress of the human society. Collective action could take many forms, from non-violent, such as signing petitions, to violent, such as sabotage (Bamberg, Rees, & Seebauer, 2015), but how does one decide to engage in collective action? According to Social Identity Model of Collective Action (SIMCA), the model that received the most empirical support, subjective factors, as opposed to objective factors, play a major role in one’s decision to engage in a social protest (van Zomeren, Postmes, & Spears, 2008). As such, objectively, the group may not be disadvantaged; yet, to foster collective action it does not matter, what matters is the subjective feeling about disadvantage. SIMCA states that there are three subjective factors that contribute to one’s willingness to engage in collective action. These factors perceived efficacy, the sense of social identity, and the perception of injustice.
The first contributing factor is perceived efficacy, that is, anticipated control over the situation. This means that people are more likely to engage in collective action if they believe that their actions would be effective in achieving a goal (van Zomeren et al., 2008). Perceived efficacy has three main components – personal efficacy, group efficacy, and participative efficacy (Van Zomeren, Saguy & Schellhaas, 2012). Personal efficacy refers to whether one believes his actions are efficient in achieving a goal, while group efficacy refers to whether one believes his group is able to achieve a goal. Participative efficacy refers to the belief that own actions are having a capacity to bring something useful to a collective work. Perceived efficacy, which has three components, is considered to be one of the main factors that influence one’s willingness to contribute to social progress. On its own, though it is not a very reliable predictor.
Yet, individuals would not engage in collective action without the second variable, which is a sense of social identity (van Zomeren et al., 2008). According to the social identity theory, people strive to achieve and maintain positive social identities associated with their group memberships (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Consequently, if the group’s status is illegitimate or unstable, members might wish to leave the group so they are not associated with it. However, the situation is different if the group boundary is impermeable (meaning, members cannot leave the group; for example, belonging to some nation). One of the options might be hiding one’s belongingness to the group; yet, it is not always possible and was shown to be an ineffective strategy (Newheiser & Barreto, 2014). In such situations, people might prefer to fight for group’s rights. Thus, one of the reasons why people engage in collective action might be to protect their positive social identities.
The third predictor of one’s willingness to engage in collective action is the perception of injustice. Perception of injustice refers to the recognition of an unfair treatment or outcomes. Engaging in a group-based comparison may result in feeling deprived, and that feeling may foster collective action (van Zomeren, Postmes, & Spears, 2008). Affective measures of injustice (that is , dissatisfaction, fraternal resentment, group-based anger; or perceptions and feelings of relative deprivation; e.g., Gill & Matheson, 2006; van Zomeren, Spears, Fischer, & Leach, 2004), as opposed to non-affective measures of injustice, were found to be a better predictor of one’s willingness to engage in collective action (van Zomeren et al., 2008). For example, an emotion like group-based anger (anger because of the group’s, but not individual’s, disadvantage) may enhance the motivation to do something about the cause (Morgan & Chan, 2016). On the other hand, focusing on the group’s progress may negatively affect one’s willingness to engage in collective action. For example, when women are thinking about a progress made in the female’s rights, their willingness to engage in collective action might decrease (Spoor & Schmitt, 2011). Therefore, the decision to take part in collective action depends partly on what one focuses on – progress or injustice.
As discussed above, one of the major factors that influence one’s decision to engage in collective action is the perception of possible cognitive alternatives to the current group status. Yet, to our knowledge, there is no research investigating the effect of potential injustice and potential cognitive alternatives on one’s willingness to engage in collective action. The question is whether people would be motivated to engage in collective action if they believe there is a possibility of injustice in the future in case no actions would be done. This matters especially if we think about collective action to protect the existing achievements of the group. If people can imagine that the current status of their ingroup is under the threat, it might motivate them to engage in collective action. Thus, the perception of the stability of existing achievements may influence one’s willingness to engage in collective action. That is, people’s beliefs about the social progress may be an important factor, which is missing in the SIMCA model.
Different people perceive social progress in a different way, that is, they have different lay theories of the social progress. That might influence their attitudes towards the collective action. Lay theories are naïve implicit theories about the world that people use to make sense of their everyday lives (reference?). One of the examples of the lay theories includes theories about willpower, which affect ability to self-regulate (Job, Dweck, & Walton, 2010; Job, Bernecker, & Dweck, 2015). People may have two kinds of the theories of self-regulation: limited and non-limited (Job et al., 2010). Those with a limited theory believe that self-control resources are depletable, while those with non-limited theory believe otherwise. This belief influences our productivity, as people with a non-limited theory of self-control have a better ability to self-regulate than people with a limited theory. Another example of the lay theories is the perceptions of self as either flexible or stable. This perception could hugely affect our wellbeing. Those who perceive themselves as having a stable, non-flexible identity, have lower well-being levels when conflicted identities are activated (Rabinovich & Morton, 2016). Overall, previous work demonstrates that lay theories that seem abstract at the first look could have important implications for our everyday lives.
Thus, the lay theories about different aspects of the social progress might influence one’s decision to engage in collective action. As discussed above, one of these aspects might be the perception of the social progress as being stable versus being reversible. We predict that those who believe that social progress is stable consider that society is unlikely to lose existing achievements. They believe that it could not be reversed and therefore, there is no need to protect it. On the other hand, those who consider social progress as reversible believe that the loss of existing achievements is very likely to happen.
Another cognitive alternative of the social progress that might influence one’s decision to engage in collective action is the perception of progress as a continuous process versus one that moves by discrete steps from one critical point to another. A critical point is a moment when something radically changes its state or direction. For example, in physics, there are critical points when water changes its state – once it falls below 0 Celsius, it becomes an ice, and once it rises above 100 Celsius, it becomes a gas. In the domain of collective action, we predict that those who perceive the progress as moving in discrete steps might be less likely to protect the existing social achievements, as they might not believe that social progress requires constant work. Conversely, we predict that those who perceive the social progress as continuous would be more motivated to put continuous effort into its development, and, consequently, more willing to engage in collective action.
The present study aims to extend research on people’s willingness to engage in collective action and add a new variable of the beliefs about the nature of the progress. We investigate the effect the exposure to the positive example of social progress has on the willingness to engage in collective action and how the lay theories of progress moderate this effect. Our focus is on the rights of immigrants and freedom of movements. We expose participants to an example of positive social progress in immigrants’ rights, and then measure their attitudes towards and willingness to participate in collective action. Our first hypothesis is that participants who consider social progress as a stable process will be less willing to engage in collective action than those who regard social progress as reversible. That is because those who believe it is stable may see no point in engaging in collective action. Our second hypothesis is that for those who believe that social progress is irreversible, exposure to an example of previously successful social progress will decrease the willingness to contribute to collective action in the same domain. This is because such exposure would further decrease one’s beliefs about the necessity of the collective action. Besides, we hypothesise that exposure to an example of successful progress will have no effect on participants who view it as a reversible process. Our third hypothesis is that for those who believe that social progress happens in grand, discrete steps, exposure to an example of successful social progress will decrease their willingness to contribute to collective action in the same domain. This exposure is likely to have a smaller effect on participants who believe that social progress requires a continuous effort. Similarly, this is due to the belief that if the social progress is continuous, there is more need to contribute to it, as opposed to if it is abrupt when there is a need to contribute to it only at the particular critical point.
Discussion
In the past years, there was much research on the influence of the lay theories on people’s everyday lives. Yet, to our knowledge, nobody has explored the perception of social progress as either stable or reversible and gradual or abrupt on a person’s decision to contribute to collective action. This study is the first direct empirical investigation of such phenomenon. We had three hypotheses, (1) that participants who consider social progress as an irreversible process would be less willing to engage in collective action than those who regard social progress as reversible; (2) that for those who believe that social progress is irreversible, exposure to an example of previously successful social progress would decrease the willingness to contribute to collective action in the same domain; and (3) that for those who believe that social progress happens in grand, discrete steps, exposure to an example of successful social progress would decrease their willingness to contribute to collective action in the same domain. None of the hypotheses was supported. Yet, the principle finding of the present research is that those who consider social progress as a lengthy process are more willing to engage in collective action to support it.
Our pilot study identified two factors that could be lay theories of social progress – stability and abruptness. Stability refers to the perception of progress being either reversible or irreversible, while abruptness refers to the perception of progress as happening gradually or by discreet steps. These were the factors we initially predicted. During the factor analysis of the main study, an additional factor emerged, which we labelled “time”. This factor measures a person’s lay theory on how much time he believes the social progress takes. One may believe it is quick; alternatively, one may believe it takes a long time. The reason this factor did not emerge in the pilot study might have been because the pilot study was a small study. We received significant results for this factor. More specifically, those who believed that social progress is a lengthy process were more likely to engage in collective action. Based on our results, we believe the factor of the perception of social progress as lengthy versus quick should be considered as an additional factor that forms one’s willingness to contribute to social progress and we believe the factor of the lay theories should be added to the SIMCA model.
According to SIMCA, perceived efficacy is a significant predictor of the willingness to engage in collective action (van Zomeren et al., 2008). Maybe, if people believe that social progress is a lengthy process, they would believe they have a higher chance to actually contribute to it. If people have much time, they might believe that them personally, and their group in general, are realistically able to make a real change. On the other hand, if they believe social change happens quickly, they may believe that they have no time to make an actual significant contribution to it. This might be one of the explanations for the result we have obtained. Add more words
One of the predictors of the person’s willingness to engage in collective action includes the amount of time spent discussing it online (Alberici & Milesi, 2012). Previous research has found that time discussing social progress influences people’s sense of efficacy, and, therefore, people become more likely to engage in collective action. Moreover, time spent discussing collective action was shown to be more effective in motivating someone to engage in it than attending a lecture on the same topic (Alberici & Milesi, 2012). According to the SIMCA model, subjective factors play a much more important role in one’s decision to engage in collective action than objective factors (van Zomeren et al., 2008). If people spend a long time discussing social progress and collective action, they might feel that social progress is a lengthy process, since they spend so much time discussing it. Objectively, it the time might not be that long (additionally, what could we call a long time?), but subjectively it may be. Thus, those things might be correlated – people spend much time discussing a progress, feel like it is a lengthy process, and decide to engage in collective action to move social progress.
Moreover, individual’s decisions to engage in collective action are based on the decisions that are aiming to maximise personal gains and minimise personal losses (Olson, 1968). Minimising losses may include minimising efforts. If people perceive social progress as a lengthy process, they may believe that they could make less effort and still be useful, and therefore would be more willing to actually do something. On the other hand, if people believe that social progress does not require much time to happen, they might believe that concentrated efforts are required, and that is much work. Consequently, they might not be willing to engage in hard work, and, thus, less willing to contribute to social progress. These parameters might be moderated by one’s perception of injustice and anger towards the cause (van Zomeren et al., 2008). Further studies might explore whether the effort required is a significant predictor of one’s willingness to engage in collective action and whether anger moderates it.
One significant contribution our study makes is the identification of the reliable factors, which are stability and abruptness of social progress. These factors emerged both in the pilot and main studies. Additionally, we conducted reliable scales for these factors. Yet, further studies with a larger sample size might wish to use our scales as a basis, and conduct a reliability analysis to support our claim that scales are reliable.
This study had a number of limitations. First of all, our sample size was 120 participants. That is not enough for factor analysis, as the reliable sample size to perform a factor analysis should be between 150 and 300 participants (Hutcheson & Sofroniou, 1999). “Stable” solution would only arise if large samples were used. Thus, there is a chance that the results of factor analysis would change if sample grew. The trend found may not be representative of the general population. There might be more factors found than they three we had. As such, in the pilot study, which was smaller than the main study, a factor “time” did not emerge. Same could be the case with the current study, as there might be other significant contributors, which we did not find because of the small sample size. Thus, further studies might wish to replicate our research with a larger sample size.
Secondly, the domain we have chosen was the freedom of movement. Yet, the study was conducted in the 2016-17, when the freedoms of movement issues were very salient due to recent events of “British Exit” (Brexit, UK’s decision in a June 23rd, 2015 to leave the European Union). For Britain, one of the consequences of leaving EU is uncertainty about freedom of movement. Thus, as those issues are salient, the manipulation might not have worked and participants might not have thought about positive changes since the negative ones were very prominent. Conducting a similar experiment in a different domain, which is not related to salient political events, might have shown different results. An example of such domain could be the legalisation of the LGBT marriage. In the UK, it occurred in 2014; thus, it is a recent salient example of social progress. Maybe, with a different example we would get different results since in our case, we did not have a truly “manipulated” group, since everyone is exposed to the freedom of movement issues now; thus, everyone was in a “control” condition. Yet, even so, regression analysis identified that the overall trend (not moderated by exposure) was not significant for the stability and abruptness measures.
The third limitation we had that we had a very diverse sample. Overall, we had thirty-three nationalities. Thus, when asked to think of the social progress, all of them might have thought of different things that are relevant to their country but not the UK. That might have gotten us such results. Additionally, one participant mentioned that he would engage in the collective action and immigrant help in his home country, but not in the UK. Moreover, cultural differences may have biased our results. As such, it was shown that people from individualistic cultures are more willing to engage in collective action when they have a strong motivation to take part and when the connectivity of the social system is low. In contrast, effective collective action in collectivistic countries may be observed when the motivation is low and the connectivity of the social system is high (Hu, Lin, & Sui, 2014). To have a clearer representation of stability, abruptness, and time affecting one’s willingness to engage in collective action, it may be necessary to restrict the sample to one nationality. Thus, having a strictly UK sample could allow for more reliable results.
The fourth limitation we had was that the mean age of participants was 21 years old. Yet, the examples we used in the manipulation text (such as the ratification of the convention of human rights) might have been more relevant to older participants. Younger participants might have been too young when this ratification happened, and therefore perceive it as an old versus a recent event. This might have influenced their perception of progress, as that may have led them to think that social progress is a lengthy process. Thus, further research might wish to have a broader sample size with a more diverse age range. Alternatively, further studies could use an example that is more relevant to their age group. Again, allowance of gay marriage could be a more relevant example to the age group we had. Add more words
Overall, this study shows that there are more predictors of one’s willingness to engage in collective action than SIMCA model predicts. Thus, next time you will be thinking about the factors that motivate you to engage in collective action, consider your perception of social progress as lengthy or quick. This way, you would be able to get more insight on your actions.