从温和的行动到激进的抗议意图

Q2 Social Sciences
Hedy Greijdanus, Sara Panerati, T. Postmes, R. Spears
{"title":"从温和的行动到激进的抗议意图","authors":"Hedy Greijdanus, Sara Panerati, T. Postmes, R. Spears","doi":"10.3167/cont.2023.110104","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nWe examine how anti-Trump democrats (N = 460), prior to the 2020 election, managed their options to protest, focusing on when moderate collective action predicts more radical intentions to protest. We investigate the relationship of moderate action involvement and effectiveness with radical action intentions and the effects of various other variables such as intergroup emotions, group identification, and political vs. participative efficacy. Although moderate action involvement is correlated with radical intentions, the effectiveness of moderate action is negatively related to radical intentions. Analogously, while political efficacy positively predicts radical action, participative efficacy negatively predicts radical action, both with increasing moderate action experience. Social-identity-based collective action models explain this radical use of political violence as protest (e.g., ESIM) and the counteracting effect of efficacy forms (SIDE, NTL).","PeriodicalId":36466,"journal":{"name":"Contention","volume":"188 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"From Moderate Action to Radical Protest Intentions\",\"authors\":\"Hedy Greijdanus, Sara Panerati, T. Postmes, R. Spears\",\"doi\":\"10.3167/cont.2023.110104\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nWe examine how anti-Trump democrats (N = 460), prior to the 2020 election, managed their options to protest, focusing on when moderate collective action predicts more radical intentions to protest. We investigate the relationship of moderate action involvement and effectiveness with radical action intentions and the effects of various other variables such as intergroup emotions, group identification, and political vs. participative efficacy. Although moderate action involvement is correlated with radical intentions, the effectiveness of moderate action is negatively related to radical intentions. Analogously, while political efficacy positively predicts radical action, participative efficacy negatively predicts radical action, both with increasing moderate action experience. Social-identity-based collective action models explain this radical use of political violence as protest (e.g., ESIM) and the counteracting effect of efficacy forms (SIDE, NTL).\",\"PeriodicalId\":36466,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Contention\",\"volume\":\"188 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Contention\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3167/cont.2023.110104\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contention","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3167/cont.2023.110104","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我们研究了在2020年大选之前,反对特朗普的民主党人(N = 460)是如何管理他们的抗议选择的,重点是温和的集体行动何时预示着更激进的抗议意图。我们研究了激进行动意图对适度行动参与和有效性的影响,以及其他变量如群体间情绪、群体认同和政治与参与效能的影响。虽然适度行动涉入与激进意图相关,但适度行动有效性与激进意图负相关。同样,政治效能正向预测激进行动,而参与效能负向预测激进行动,两者都随着温和行动经验的增加而增加。基于社会认同的集体行动模型解释了这种激进地使用政治暴力作为抗议(例如,ESIM)和效能形式的抵消效应(SIDE, NTL)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
From Moderate Action to Radical Protest Intentions
We examine how anti-Trump democrats (N = 460), prior to the 2020 election, managed their options to protest, focusing on when moderate collective action predicts more radical intentions to protest. We investigate the relationship of moderate action involvement and effectiveness with radical action intentions and the effects of various other variables such as intergroup emotions, group identification, and political vs. participative efficacy. Although moderate action involvement is correlated with radical intentions, the effectiveness of moderate action is negatively related to radical intentions. Analogously, while political efficacy positively predicts radical action, participative efficacy negatively predicts radical action, both with increasing moderate action experience. Social-identity-based collective action models explain this radical use of political violence as protest (e.g., ESIM) and the counteracting effect of efficacy forms (SIDE, NTL).
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
Contention
Contention Social Sciences-Cultural Studies
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信