Ana Urbiola, Lucía López-Rodríguez, Laura C. Torres-Vega, Xenia-Daniela Poslon, Barbara Lášticová, József Pántya, Hanna Szekeres, Anna Kende
{"title":"Believing that social change is possible: Collective efficacy to promote engagement and mobilization of non-Roma as allies","authors":"Ana Urbiola, Lucía López-Rodríguez, Laura C. Torres-Vega, Xenia-Daniela Poslon, Barbara Lášticová, József Pántya, Hanna Szekeres, Anna Kende","doi":"10.1111/bjso.12895","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>We analyzed the effect of collective efficacy on mobilizing allies for Roma rights and the role of legitimizing ideologies and perceived discrimination as moderators. In an online experiment, pooling two samples of non-Roma Hungarians (<i>n</i> = 397) and Spaniards (<i>n</i> = 339), participants were randomly assigned to a high (vs. low) efficacy condition and reported their perceived collective efficacy, collective action intentions, and participation for supporting Roma. Pooled analyses showed that participants were more willing to take action in the high (vs. low) efficacy condition, although meritocracy beliefs moderated the effects. In a second study in Slovakia (<i>n</i> = 454), with a control condition, we found indirect effects of the manipulation of collective efficacy, supporting the idea that decreasing perceived collective efficacy predicts lower collective action intentions and participation. In a third study in Hungary (<i>n</i> = 382), we disentangled collective efficacy from social norms and found indirect effects via perceived collective efficacy. Participants in the low efficacy condition (vs. high efficacy or control) perceived less collective efficacy as allies, which in turn was associated with lower collective action. We discuss the conceptualization of collective efficacy in experimental studies and its implications for the mobilization of equality.</p>","PeriodicalId":48304,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Social Psychology","volume":"64 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Social Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjso.12895","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
We analyzed the effect of collective efficacy on mobilizing allies for Roma rights and the role of legitimizing ideologies and perceived discrimination as moderators. In an online experiment, pooling two samples of non-Roma Hungarians (n = 397) and Spaniards (n = 339), participants were randomly assigned to a high (vs. low) efficacy condition and reported their perceived collective efficacy, collective action intentions, and participation for supporting Roma. Pooled analyses showed that participants were more willing to take action in the high (vs. low) efficacy condition, although meritocracy beliefs moderated the effects. In a second study in Slovakia (n = 454), with a control condition, we found indirect effects of the manipulation of collective efficacy, supporting the idea that decreasing perceived collective efficacy predicts lower collective action intentions and participation. In a third study in Hungary (n = 382), we disentangled collective efficacy from social norms and found indirect effects via perceived collective efficacy. Participants in the low efficacy condition (vs. high efficacy or control) perceived less collective efficacy as allies, which in turn was associated with lower collective action. We discuss the conceptualization of collective efficacy in experimental studies and its implications for the mobilization of equality.
期刊介绍：
The British Journal of Social Psychology publishes work from scholars based in all parts of the world, and manuscripts that present data on a wide range of populations inside and outside the UK. It publishes original papers in all areas of social psychology including: • social cognition • attitudes • group processes • social influence • intergroup relations • self and identity • nonverbal communication • social psychological aspects of personality, affect and emotion • language and discourse Submissions addressing these topics from a variety of approaches and methods, both quantitative and qualitative are welcomed. We publish papers of the following kinds: • empirical papers that address theoretical issues; • theoretical papers, including analyses of existing social psychological theories and presentations of theoretical innovations, extensions, or integrations; • review papers that provide an evaluation of work within a given area of social psychology and that present proposals for further research in that area; • methodological papers concerning issues that are particularly relevant to a wide range of social psychologists; • an invited agenda article as the first article in the first part of every volume. The editorial team aims to handle papers as efficiently as possible. In 2016, papers were triaged within less than a week, and the average turnaround time from receipt of the manuscript to first decision sent back to the authors was 47 days.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
