Acting for whom, against what? Group membership and multiple paths to engagement in social change

In a connected and politically engaged world, it is essential to understand how, why, and when people from diverse backgrounds may support social action. Integrating findings from the collective action, solidarity, and allyship literatures, we present working models of how the lenses through which individuals possessing different group memberships may psychologically identify (as part of the targeted group, an inclusive stigmatized identity, or the societally dominant group) and perceive injustice (as exclusively affecting the targeted group, inclusively affecting the target group and one's ingroup, or perceiving ingroup privileges) may shape social change efforts. We highlight disparate effects of positive (and negative) contact between groups on the mobilization of socially dominant and stigmatized groups that may provide challenges to diverse coalitions seeking social change.

Friends or foes? How activists and non-activists perceive and evaluate each other

Little is known about how activists and non-activists perceive and evaluate each other. This is important because activists often depend on societal support to achieve their goals. We examined these perceptions and evaluations in three field experiments set in different contexts, i.e., student protests in the Netherlands 2014/2015 (Study 1, activist sample N = 190; Study 2, non-activist sample N = 145), and environmental protests in Paris in 2015 (Study 3, activist sample N = 112). Through a scenario method, we manipulated the motivations expressed for (in)action by a member of the other group (i.e., an activist or non-activist) and measured individuals’ perceptions and evaluations. Findings showed that activists perceived a non-activist as selfish and felt personally distant to them, especially when a non-activist dismissed moral obligation for action (Study 1 and 3). By contrast, non-activists had a rather positive view of activists, especially in response to an activist communicating collective concerns for action (Study 2). Study 4 (N = 103) further supported this pattern of findings by showing that activists perceived larger intergroup differences than non-activists. We conclude that mutual perceptions and evaluations of activists and non-activists are asymmetrical, which may have (negative) consequences for mobilization for social change.

The Polish Round Table as a blueprint for “successful” social change? Some thoughts on “liberal hindsight” in the social sciences

The Polish Round Table offers a rare historical example where negotiations between representatives of opposing political sides achieved major political transformation in a peaceful way. Such an outcome should undoubtedly be labeled a success. However, in our commentary, taking the example of the Polish Round Table, we take a critical look at the interpretation of success of social movements by social scientists. In line with the ethos of social sciences, social scientists value (harmoniously achieved) progressive types of change, such as the change that followed the negotiations of the Polish Round Table. Indeed, when it comes to the Round Table, our definition of success may be blurred by the political evaluation of the changes of 1989 from a liberal perspective. The target articles point out the importance of specific structural conditions (both internal and international) and psychological processes (perceptions of power, efficacy and moral commitment) that led to the successful outcome. We therefore argue that it is pivotal to delineate the conditions of success, if we want to apply them to other contexts without bias. Neither hindsight, nor liberal bias are problematic per se, but they can evoke a form of wishful thinking that, as scientists, we may want to treat with some skepticism.

Remaking history and remaking psychology: On the contributions of Janusz Reykowski and Janusz Grzelak to the Polish Round Table negotiations

In this introductory piece to the special issue, I seek to establish the importance of the topic under discussion: that is, the psychology of the 1989 Polish Round Table Talks. I start by underlining the unique opportunity to gain insight into this topic given that two of the main protagonists, Janusz Reykowski on the Government side and Janusz Grzelak on the Solidarity side, are social psychologists. Next, I argue for both the world-historical significance of the Round Table Talks and for the necessity of a psychological dimension to the analysis of what happened. I then address what Psychology provides for an understanding of the Round Table process and what the Round Table process contributes to an understanding of Psychology. Specifically, this turns on the need for a more complex and historical conceptualisation of intergroup relations in which the very nature of the groups in relation may be transformed. I conclude by pointing to further research opportunities on this key question of the configuration and reconfiguration of social groups.

Round Table Talks did not happen in a vacuum: The political solidarity model of social change and Polish transition to democracy

Theories of social change developed within social psychology are rarely employed to interpret historical events. This is a serious neglect, as a social-psychological perspective has the capacity to inform our understanding of long-term processes that prepare the ground for major political breakthroughs. In this commentary, I utilize the political solidarity model of social change (Subašić, Reynolds, & Turner, 2008, https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868308323223) to examine Poland’s path to democracy. Using a tripolar division for the authority (i.e., communist leaders), the minority (i.e., democratic opposition), and the majority (i.e., unengaged citizens), I argue that the Round Table Talks of 1989 originated from two interdependent social processes that precipitated in the late ’70s. Whereas one of these processes encompassed the loss of popular support for the Communist Party, the other one involved an increase in the majority’s identification with the democratic opposition. I propose that without the co-occurrence of these two processes, the Round Table agreements would not have been possible.

A large-scale test of the link between intergroup contact and support for social change

Guided by the early findings of social scientists, practitioners have long advocated for greater contact between groups to reduce prejudice and increase social cohesion. Recent work, however, suggests that intergroup contact can undermine support for social change towards greater equality, especially among disadvantaged group members. Using a large and heterogeneous dataset (12,997 individuals from 69 countries), we demonstrate that intergroup contact and support for social change towards greater equality are positively associated among members of advantaged groups (ethnic majorities and cis-heterosexuals) but negatively associated among disadvantaged groups (ethnic minorities and sexual and gender minorities). Specification-curve analysis revealed important variation in the size-and at times, direction-of correlations, depending on how contact and support for social change were measured. This allowed us to identify one type of support for change-willingness to work in solidarity- that is positively associated with intergroup contact among both advantaged and disadvantaged group members.

Feminist or Paternalistic: Understanding Men's Motivations to Confront Sexism

The role of men in fighting gender inequality is a controversial issue. Literature has shown that advantaged group members can promote social change but also perpetuate status quo. We conducted three studies to examine two motivational processes that may lead men to confront sexism: an egalitarian path and a paternalistic one. Studies 1–3 revealed that men high in benevolent sexism were more willing to confront sexism for paternalistic reasons, whereas Studies 2–3 found that men high in feminist identification were more likely to confront sexism for egalitarian reasons. Pooled analyses (Studies 1–3) supported the egalitarian and paternalistic paths underlying sexism confrontation. Moreover, Studies 2 and 3 extended these findings to collective action and engagement in the men’s activist movement that aims to reflect on male privilege (i.e., the Men for Equity movement). These results highlight the existence of various underlying motivations to confront sexism by men, as well as the limits of paternalism and the potential of feminism to motivate men to take part in other kinds of actions beyond confrontation to foster social change.

Village guards as “in between” in the Turkish-Kurdish conflict: Re-examining identity and position in intergroup conflict

The current paper utilizes new approaches in intergroup conflict studies to examine the village guard system and its role in the Turkish-Kurdish conflict in Turkey. Recent work suggests that a two-group paradigm in researching intergroup conflict leaves out important contextual factors that influence trajectories and outcomes of conflict. The current paper is based on a project examining the views of 63 active and retired village guards in five provinces in eastern Turkey. Participants were asked how they became village guards, their experiences while holding the position and after they’ve retired, their relationship with neighbors and neighboring villages, as well as their views on the peace process and whether they believe a lasting peace is possible. Results indicate that village guards became guards either because their tribe took arms as a whole, they felt economically there were few other options, or were pressured by the state. Participants also reported feeling otherized by both non-village guard neighbors as well as state actors, and were generally positive about a peaceful outcome to the conflict but were concerned about the sincerity of the government.

Support for collective action against refugees: The role of national, European, and global identifications, and autochthony beliefs

To understand recent anti-refugee protests in Europe, we examined how different levels of inclusiveness of group identities (national, European, and global) are related to intentions to protest among native Europeans. We focused on the mediating role of autochthony (a belief that the first inhabitants of a territory are more entitled) and the moderating role of threat. Survey data from 11 European countries (N = 1,909) showed that national identification was positively associated with autochthony, and therefore, with the intention to protest against refugees. In contrast, global identification was related to lower protest intentions via lower autochthony. These paths were found only among Europeans who perceived refugees as a threat. European identification was not related to the endorsement of autochthony or to collective action. These findings indicate why and when majority members are willing to participate in collective action against refugees, and underscore the importance of global identification in the acceptance of refugees.

Political solidarity: A theory and a measure

Political solidarity is often key to addressing societal injustice. Yet social and political psychology are without a common definition or comprehensive measure of this construct, complicating advancements in this burgeoning field. To address these gaps, we advance a novel understanding and measure of this construct. We conceptualized political solidarity as a construct consisting of three factors—allyship with a minority outgroup, a connection to their cause, and a commitment to working with them to achieve social change—that can emerge within and across social groups. Five studies empirically supported our conceptualization and measure; all participants were Canadian university students. In Study 1, 1,594 participants completed the initial 30-item pool. A series of exploratory factor analyses, along with indices of factor retention, supported the three-factor model. We retained three items per factor to create the 9-item Political Solidarity Measure (PSM). This three-factor model adequately fit Study 2 data (N = 275). In Study 3 (N = 268), we found evidence of the PSM’s convergent and discriminant validity. Studies 3 and 4 assessed the PSM’s retest stability in the medium-term (three to six months; Study 3) and short-term (a three-week period; Study 4; N = 126). Finally, we demonstrate the PSM’s predictive validity in Study 5 (N = 221). Controlling for modern racism, political orientation, and gender, PSM scores predicted collective action intentions and behavior benefitting the outgroup: Participants who reported higher political solidarity donated more to the outgroup’s cause and were more likely to agree to create a message of support.

Vegetarian, vegan, activist, radical: Using latent profile analysis to examine different forms of support for animal welfare

There are many different ways that people can express their support for the animals that exist in factory farms. This study draws on insights from the social identity approach, and adopts novel methods (latent profile analysis [LPA]) to examine the qualitatively different subgroups or profiles that comprise broader community positions on this issue. North American participants ( N = 578) completed measures of the frequency with which they engaged in 18 different animal welfare actions. LPA identified 3 meaningful profiles: ambivalent omnivores ( n = 410; people who occasionally limited their consumption of meat/animal products), a lifestyle activist group ( n = 134; limited their consumption of animal/meat products and engaged in political actions), and a vegetarian radical group ( n = 34; strictly limited their consumption of animal/meat products and engaged in both political and radical actions). Membership of the 3 populations was predicted by different balances of social identities (supporter of animal welfare, vegan/vegetarian, solidarity with animals), and markers of politicization and/or radicalization. Results reveal the utility of adopting person-centred methods to study political engagement and extremism generally, and highlight heterogeneity in the ways that people respond to the harms perpetrated against animals.

Including political context in the psychological analysis of collective action: Development and validation of a measurement scale for subjective political openness

Sociological and Political Science research has argued that political conditions affect both the occurrence of protests and the actions protesters choose. However, an approach that considers people’s perceptions on these conditions is still absent in the social psychological literature. Subjective Political Openness (SPO) is a new construct which fills this gap by incorporating features of political context into the psychological analysis of protests. We propose that SPO comprises perceptions relating to three dimensions: government actions to allow/restrict protests, police measures to actively prevent them, and the extent that public opinion legitimizes protests. We conducted two studies in the UK and Chile to validate scales created for each proposed dimension, test their measurement invariance, establish SPO’s configuration, and demonstrate its convergent validity. Participants in Study 1 were university students (n UK = 203; n Chile = 237), whereas in Study 2 a general population sample from both countries was included (n UK = 377; n Chile = 309) with the purpose of generalizing the results. Both studies consistently showed that SPO is a multidimensional construct configured as a bifactor model comprising the dimensions associated with perceptions of the government and police actions to confront protests. Although we tested two different measurement scales for the perceived legitimacy given by public opinion to protests, results demonstrated this dimension is not part of SPO. The SPO configuration has implications for both our understanding of collective action and how we study it.

A field study around a racial justice protest on a college campus: The proximal impact of collective action on the social change attitudes of uninvolved bystanders

Social movements often use protests and other collective actions to draw public attention to their cause, yet the psychological reactions to such actions from their targeted audience is not well understood. This research investigates uninvolved bystanders’ immediate responses to collective action using a quasi-experimental field study designed around a racial justice protest that took place at a large public university in the United States. We surveyed two student samples exactly one week apart at the same time and location, first in the absence of protest and then again at the time of a racial justice protest (Total N = 240). We found that participants who believed that racism was not a problem on campus had more negative attitudes toward racial justice protests and protesters, as well as lower support for anti-racist efforts on campus on the day of the protest, compared to the day without a protest. These findings provide initial evidence that a protest encounter may trigger a backlash effect amongst those who have the most resistant attitudes toward social change.

Whose tweets? The rhetorical functions of social media use in developing the Black Lives Matter movement

Research on collective action frequently characterizes social media as a tool for mobilization. However, social media activity can fulfil a variety of different functions for social change. In particular, the rhetorical functions of social media use by social movements are not well understood. We address this shortfall by analysing the rhetorical functions of Twitter use during an early stage of the Black Lives Matter social movement. We examine how activists used Twitter to balance competing aims for social change, such as growing the movement beyond disadvantaged-group members, while preventing appropriation or dilution of their message by advantaged-group 'allies'. We find that although Twitter users promote different, and often competing, definitions of the issues that the movement represents, rhetorical strategies are used to advance inclusive definitions that focus on racism. When activists address alternative definitions of movement actors and issues, representations of Otherness are used to characterize the proponents of these definitions as in opposition to the movement. Finally, we find that one way of resolving the tension between growing the movement and promoting disadvantaged-group control is by using identity and technology resources to explicitly define (1) how different groups can be movement advocates, and (2) action strategies for social change.

What do we want? Examining the motivating role of goals in social movement mobilization

The main purpose of any social movement organization is to achieve the goals of its followers. Little is known, however, about what type of goals disadvantaged group members strive to reach and which of those may motivate them to join a social movement organization. Using a door-to-door survey (N = 351), we investigated the mobilizing effects of goals among inhabitants of the North of the Netherlands that are adversely affected by gas-extraction induced earthquakes. We distinguished between collective (e.g., reduce gas extraction) versus individual goals (e.g., financial compensation), and outcome versus means goals (e.g., influence policy-makers). Moreover, we examined how perceptions of shared opinions with other affected citizens versus with people who are not negatively affected by gas extraction motivate the inhabitants to join a movement and attach importance to different goals. Our results indicate the existence of two pathways for potential mobilization: the first one through the perceptions of shared grievances, which can motivate people to join the movement and pursue collective solutions; and a second one through the perceptions of deprivation, which can motivate people to exert influence on power holders by joining a movement. Individual outcome goals were important but did not motivate disadvantaged citizens to join a social movement organization. We discuss the role of goals as a link between individual level and meso level factors for movement mobilization and collective action.

Intergroup Toleration and Its Implications for Culturally Diverse Societies

In recent decades, tolerance has been proposed as a necessary response to the global rise in cultural and religious diversity. Tolerance is widely embraced in community, national, and international policies, in relation to many types of differences between people and groups. However, in both public and academic discourse, the notion of tolerance appears to have various meanings, which limits our ability to create, evaluate, and implement effective policies. To discuss various policy implications of toleration, we first consider the concept of toleration and its difference from prejudice. We then discuss existing research on intergroup tolerance, the importance of perspective taking, the asymmetry of tolerance, and the boundaries of toleration. Subsequently, we discuss research that indicates that the discourse of tolerance can function as a dimension of intergroup comparison that leads to acceptance or rejection of cultural and religious minority groups. Furthermore, we consider the depoliticized effects that tolerance discourse might have and the possible negative psychological consequences for groups that are tolerated in society. Gaps in existing knowledge are considered and policy implications are explored throughout.

Whose Issue Is It Anyway? The Effects of Leader Gender and Equality Message Framing on Men's and Women's Mobilization Toward Workplace Gender Equality

Social psychologists have not fully investigated the role of leadership in mobilizing widespread support for social change, particularly gender equality. The burden of achieving gender equality is typically placed on women (particularly female leaders) - the main targets of such inequality. Traditional approaches frame workplace gender equality as either a women's issue, which limits men's (non-target's) involvement in the movement, or a meritocratic non-issue that exists due to women's (target's) tendency to pursue less intensive careers. In contrast to such work focusing on women's experiences as targets of discrimination or men's role in preserving inequality, we propose a solidarity-based approach that positions men and women as agents of change. This approach relies on two processes: leadership processes - particularly leadership as a form of influence based on shared identities among leaders and followers (e.g., their gender group); and political solidarity as a way to mobilize the silent majority (men) to work as allies beside a minority (women) and embrace equality as a common cause for both groups. In two experiments (Ns = 338, 336) we studied how leader gender and message framing affect men's and women's support for equality by contrasting a solidarity-based framing of gender equality as a common cause for men and women, with a women's issue frame (Experiment 1) or a meritocratic frame (Experiment 2). The statement was attributed to a male or female leader (Experiments 1-2) or, additionally, to a government agency (Experiment 1). Women reported higher sense of common cause (Experiment 2) and collective action intentions than men (Experiments 1-2), and higher intentions under common cause compared to meritocracy frames (Experiment 2). Interestingly, male leaders invoked higher sense of common cause and collective action intentions for both men and women regardless of framing (Experiment 2). Irrespective of leader gender however, as predicted common cause framing boosted perceived leader prototypicality, legitimacy, and influence across the board (Experiments 1-2). Yet this was qualified by women (compared to men) rating leaders as more legitimate and influential under common cause compared to meritocracy framing (Experiment 2). Women's reactions to equality messages, and the intersection of leadership and solidarity toward equality are discussed.

Meeting a nice asylum seeker: Intergroup contact changes stereotype content perceptions and associated emotional prejudices, and encourages solidarity-based collective action intentions

Intergroup contact can improve majority members' perception of minorities. Integrating the intergroup contact hypothesis with the stereotype content model and BIAS-Map, we hypothesized that positive intergroup contact improves German majority members' evaluations of asylum seekers on the warmth and competence dimensions. Using cross-sectional survey data and structural equation modelling, we found support for this hypothesis (Study 1a, N = 182). Warmth and competence perceptions, in turn, predicted specific intergroup emotions (Study 1b, N = 255). A causal effect of intergroup contact on changes in stereotype content, emotions, and solidarity-based collective action intentions as an important facilitative behavioural intention debated in the intergroup contact literature is established with experimental data (Study 2, N = 74). Participants interacting with an asylum seeker rated asylum seekers higher on warmth and specific intergroup emotions and were more supportive of solidarity-based collective actions in favour of asylum seekers. Our study demonstrates that contact has differential effects on cognitive, affective, and behavioural components of prejudice towards asylum seekers that are systematically linked.

Where did inaction go? Towards a broader and more refined perspective on collective actions

While injustice is widespread, collective action against it appears to be rare. This paper argues that this may be because research often focuses on a narrow range of outgroup‐oriented actions, such as demonstrating, signing petitions, that are symbolic of a collective response to injustice. The present work takes a bottom‐up approach to study a broad range of collective and individual actions that people undertake in response to collective injustice. Participants indicated actions they felt they could take (Study 1) and, via interviews, actually had taken (Study 2) in response to human‐induced earthquakes. These studies revealed a broad range of actions, many of which are collective but ingroup‐ (e.g., helping ingroup members) rather than outgroup‐oriented. Study 3 further conceptualized these collective and individual actions by including quantitative measures thereof in an assessment of responses to stressful life events that were collective or individual. Results revealed that, while traditional forms of collective action are rare, ingroup‐oriented and individual level (e.g., social support) responses form distinct dimensions in response to both individual and collective events. This work extends our understanding of responses to collective injustice and suggests the need to broaden the scope of collective action research.

Social psychological research on prejudice as collective action supporting emergent ingroup members

Why does social psychological research on prejudice change across time? We argue that scientific change is not simply a result of empirical evidence, technological developments, or social controversies, but rather emerges out of social change-driven shifts in how researchers categorize themselves and others within their larger societies. As mainstream researchers increasingly recategorize former outgroup members as part of a novel ingroup, prejudice research shifts in support of emergent ingroup members against their emergent outgroup opponents. Although social change-driven science results in valuable opportunities for researchers, it also results in significant risks for research - collective, scientific biases in the inclusion and exclusion of social groups in prejudice research that are not readily detected or managed by traditional controls. We present the Emergent Ingroup Model (EIM) to encourage reflection on shared biases, as well as to spark a broader conversation on how to strengthen our field for a rapidly changing and increasingly global world.

Changing minds via collective action: Exposure to the 2017 Women’s March predicts decrease in (some) men’s gender system justification over time

Even though social change efforts are largely aimed at impacting upon public opinion, there is an overwhelming scarcity of research on the potential consequences of collective action. We aimed to fill this gap by capitalizing on the widespread 2017 Women’s March that developed across the US and worldwide in response to Donald Trump’s inauguration. We assessed changes in gender system justification of men and women over time—before and right after the Women’s March ( N = 344). We further considered participants’ level of gender identification and reported levels of exposure to the march as predictors of change. Results showed that gender system justification decreased over time, but only among low-identified men with relatively high exposure to the protests. For men highly identified with their gender, gender system justification actually increased with greater exposure to the protests. For women, we did not observe changes in gender system justification. Implications for collective action and for gender relations are discussed.

“We for She”: Mobilising men and women to act in solidarity for gender equality

Gender (in)equality is typically studied as a women’s issue to be addressed via systemic measures (e.g., government policy). As such, research focusing on mobilising men (and women) towards achieving gender equality is rare. In contrast, this paper examines the mobilisation of both men and women towards gender equality as common cause. Experiment 1 shows that men’s collective action intentions increase after reading messages that position men as agents of change towards gender equality, compared to messages that frame this issue as stemming from inadequate government policy. Experiments 2 and 3 demonstrate that messages framing gender equality as an issue for both men and women increase men’s collective action intentions, compared to when gender inequality is framed as primarily concerning women. However, this effect emerges primarily under conditions where the source of message is male (Experiment 3). Practical and theoretical implications for mobilising political solidarity in gender equality contexts are discussed.

Individual differences in system justification predict power and morality-related needs in advantaged and disadvantaged groups in response to group disparity

Guided by the needs-based model, we explored how individual differences in system justification predict group members’ needs in response to information about group-based disparities. Across two studies ( N = 819), we found that among disadvantaged-group members (LGBTIQ* individuals/women) system justification was negatively related to need for power. Among advantaged-group members ([cis-]heterosexuals/men), system justification was negatively related to motivation to restore their ingroup’s moral essence (i.e., moral shame and wish that the ingroup would act more morally) but positively related to motivation to restore their ingroup’s moral image (i.e., need for positive moral image and expectation that the outgroup should acknowledge the ingroup’s morality). These results theoretically extend the needs-based model by offering a more nuanced picture of morality-related needs. Further, they underline the importance of considering individual differences in system justification for understanding advantaged- and disadvantaged-group members’ responses to social inequality.

When nonactivists care: Group efficacy mediates the effect of social identification and perceived instability on the legitimacy of collective action

In recent years, multiple social movements have emerged around the world. In addition, public surveys indicate the highest recorded levels of support for protest. In this context of acceptance of collective action, we examine the role of nonactivists in the perceived legitimacy of social movements, as this “passive” support can contribute to social change. Given that antecedents of legitimacy have been neglected in the literature, we carried out a survey ( N = 605) among a general sample of the population in Chile to shed light on this issue. We found that social identification with movements and perceived instability predicted the perceived legitimacy of protests by social movements, and that both variables had only indirect effects through group efficacy. This suggests that perceiving social movements as able to achieve success can lead nonactivists to perceive their actions as legitimate, highlighting the importance to movements of being seen to be effective.

Beyond group engagement: Multiple pathways from encounters with the police to cooperation and compliance in Northern Ireland

In a sample of young people in Northern Ireland (N = 819), we examine the relationships between the quality of experience with police officers and police legitimacy. We examine potential pathways through which experiences may either support or undermine the legitimacy of the police, and thus cooperation and compliance with them. We find evidence that perceptions of the police as having goals that align with those of wider society, and as being fair in general, mediate relations between the quality of encounters and legitimacy, which in turn mediates the relation with cooperation and compliance. Identification with wider society was not a reliable mediator, contrary to our predictions based on the Group Engagement Model. Moreover, our analysis of the structure of police fairness perceptions finds no support for the distinction between procedural and distributive police fairness as usually conceived. Implications for the social psychological understanding of legitimate authority are discussed.

“La beauté est dans la rue”: Four reasons (or perhaps five) to study crowds

In this paper, I argue that the study of crowds provides important lessons for social psychology in four key areas. First, it reveals the political influences which shaped and continue to shape the questions we ask and the answers we provide. Second, it demonstrates the importance of a methodological strategy which attends to real-world phenomena and the ability of theory to make sense of them. Third, it generates new theoretical insights and conceptual paradigms which have relevance to social psychology in general. Fourth, it provides new insights into the way that the social relations which constitute everyday social reality are created, consolidated, and changed. In sum, I suggest that the crowd is uniquely fertile ground in which to investigate the subject matter of social psychology.

Culture meets collective action: Exciting synergies and some lessons to learn for the future

In this introduction to the special issue of Group Processes & Intergroup Relations on “Culture and Collective Action” we emphasize the importance of the special issue topic for the development of the field. Specifically, we highlight the globalization of collective action and the internationalization of the social-psychological study of collective action, both of which point to culture as a missing link for this field. We thus propose that the next step is to move toward a proper cultural psychology of collective action—a social psychology in which culture is an integral part. This special issue provides a first step toward such a broad and integrative psychological understanding of collective action, but comes with promises as well as problems. We discuss both the exciting synergies and some lessons to learn for the future, and conclude that a focus on culture will facilitate the development of the rich and fascinating field of the social psychology of collective action.

Political solidarity through action (and inaction): How international relations changed intracultural perceptions in Ukraine

The present research sought to explain the mechanisms behind rival Ukrainian solidarity campaigns advocating protection of the minority Crimean Tatars in the immediate aftermath of Russia’s 2014 annexation of the Crimean peninsula. Adapting the social identity model of helping and solidarity we propose that political solidarity is a form of collective action in which allies can align their aspirational identities to the oppressed group’s political loyalties through a process of disidentification from powerful outgroups. We proposed and found supportive evidence ( N = 657) for the notion that both action (facilitation pathway) and inaction (inhibitory pathway) to support the Crimean Tatars were derived from disidentification from the European Union or the Russian-Federation-dominated Customs Union and are mediated by perception of the Crimean Tatars’ loyalties towards Russia and Ukraine. The findings provide initial evidence for a new understanding of political mobilization in support of third parties as a group-level emergent phenomenon in the context of identity threat.