Diversity, dissent, and fragmentation in the #MeToo movement: the role of collective and individual dimensions

Introduction

In this research, we examine how intragroup fragmentation, which is the division of a group into smaller subgroups, interacts with different forms of action against gender inequality. We focused on two types of action: actions that promote social change and actions that encourage retribution.

Methods

We investigated these processes within the #MeToo social movement using data collected in Australia (N = 363) and Romania (N = 135). In both samples, we measured antecedents of 'group consciousness' (previous experience with discrimination, empathic concern, and perspective taking) and its indicators (social identification, perceived group efficacy beliefs, and group emotions such as anger and contempt). As indicators of intragroup fragmentation, we measured endorsement of different categories of group behaviors such as pro-social change action versus pro-retribution action. To assess the predictive power of motivations for joining the movement (antecedents of group consciousness) and of group consciousness for either pro-social or retributive actions, we tested several structural equation models (SEMs).

Results

Our results indicate that the motivations for joining such social movements were more complex than anticipated, with perspective-taking emerging as a significant differentiator. Our analyses further show that different dimensions of group consciousness could predict support for either pro-social or retributive actions.

Discussion

These findings highlight the complexity of the intragroup processes in newly emerging, modern social movements such as #MeToo. Our findings have implications for the study of membership dynamics in social movements and suggest that strategies to mobilise support should be tailored to these complexities. Overall, this research contributes to the current understanding of intragroup dynamics in contemporary social movements, thereby providing insights that could inform both grassroots mobilisation strategies and policy interventions aiming to increase gender equality.

A Polarized Discourse: Effects of Opinion Differentiation and Structural Differentiation on Communication

In Western societies, many polarized debates extend beyond the area of opinions, having consequences for social structures within society. Such segmentation of society into opinion-based groups may hinder communication, making it difficult to reconcile viewpoints across group boundaries. In three representative samples from Australia and the Netherlands (N = 1,206), we examine whether perceived polarization predicts the quality (harmony, comfort, and experience of negative emotions) and quantity (avoidance of the issue) of communication with others in the community. We distinguish between perceived opinion differentiation (i.e., the extent to which opinions in society are divided) and perceived structural differentiation (i.e., the extent to which society fissions into subgroups). Results show that although opinion differentiation positively predicts the discussion of societal issues, the belief that these opinions reflect a deeper societal divide predicts negative communication expectations and intentions. We discuss how polarization perceptions may reinforce communicative behaviors that catalyze actual polarization processes.

Favouring a disunited Kingdom? How negative perceptions of the EU-referendum relate to individual mobility and collective action considerations

One consequence of the EU-referendum’s pro-Brexit outcome was a renewed call for Scottish independence. Supporting this call can be construed as a form of collective action Scots may engage in. However, Scots may also consider individual mobility strategies including - in extreme cases - emigration. The current research investigated how identity-dynamics relate to these identity management strategies in post-referendum Scotland. We found a positive association between perceiving the EU-referendum as having violated expectations and considering individual mobility responses, mediated by identity subversion (i.e., the perception that the referendum results fundamentally changed the UK’s identity). Furthermore, we found that perceiving the EU-referendum as having violated expectations was related to higher collective action intentions, mediated by disidentification from UK citizens. Taken together, these findings underscore the pervasive role social identity processes play in shaping political decisions and individual behaviour.

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.

The Need to Refocus on the Group as the Site of Radicalization

The past decade has witnessed burgeoning efforts among governments to prevent people from developing a commitment to violent extremism (conceived of as a process of radicalization). These interventions acknowledge the importance of group processes yet in practice primarily focus on the idiosyncratic personal vulnerabilities that lead people to engage in violence. This conceptualization is problematic because it disconnects the individual from the group and fails to adequately address the role of group processes in radicalization. To address this shortcoming, we propose a genuinely social psychological account of radicalization as an alternative. We draw on recent developments in theory and research in psychological science to suggest that radicalization is fundamentally a group socialization process through which people develop identification with a set of norms-that may be violent or nonviolent-through situated social interactions that leverage their shared perceptions and experiences. Our alternative provides a way of understanding shifts toward violent extremism that are caused by both the content (focal topics) and process of social interactions. This means that people's radicalization to violence is inseparable from the social context in which their social interactions take place.

Threat to the Group's Image Can Motivate High Identifiers to Take Action Against In-group Transgressions

When transgressions are committed by a group, those highly identified with the group are often least likely to recognize the transgressions, feel collective guilt, and engage in action to address them. We hypothesized that especially among high identifiers, demonstrating that in-group transgressions threaten the group's image can induce normative conflict and thus collective guilt and action. In the first study, we demonstrate that high (vs. low) image threat increases normative conflict among high identifiers. In Study 2, we show that inducing normative conflict through image threat leads to increased collective guilt and collective action among high identifiers. In Study 3, we replicate this effect with the addition of a control condition to demonstrate increased normative conflict and collective guilt relative to both a low threat and baseline conditions. In Study 4, we again replicate these effects with a modified manipulation that more precisely manipulated image threat. Together, these studies indicate that image threat can be an effective motivator for high identifiers to address in-group transgressions.

It’s either you or me! Impact of deviations on social exclusion and leaving

When detecting deviations from group norms, observers often respond by attempting to exclude the deviates or by leaving the group. Despite the commonalities between these two impactful responses, they have rarely been addressed simultaneously. Therefore, three experiments investigated how deviant behavior in small groups relates to observers’ intentions to exclude the deviate from the in-group and to leave that group themselves. Exclusion intentions are evoked by severe deviations from core elements of the group norm, mediated by heightened identity subversion (Studies 1–3). Study 3 demonstrated that leaving becomes more likely when perceived situational control is low—here evoked by acceptance of the deviant behavior by other in-group members, suggesting that aggravating conditions must be present for this response. Observing deviations seems to trigger leaving and exclusion intentions, yet they result from two distinct processes. We discuss our results in relation to work on group schism and literature on social exclusion.

When Subgroups Secede: Extending and Refining the Social Psychological Model of Schism in Groups

This article is about a field study (N = 1,080) concerning the secession of a subgroup from the Church of England, and it is aimed at extending and refining the existing social psychological model of schisms in groups. It was found that the first step toward a schism is the belief that the group identity has been subverted. This belief will prompt negative emotions (i.e., dejection and agitation) and decrease both group identification and perceived group entitativity (i.e., cohesion, oneness). In turn, low group entitativity will reduce the level of group identification. Finally, low group identification and high negative emotions will increase schismatic intentions. It is also demonstrated that the negative impact of group identification, and the positive impact of negative emotions, on schismatic intentions is moderated by the perceived ability to voice dissent (i.e., the greater the perceived voice, the weaker the impact).

Should We Stay or Should We Go? A Social Psychological Model of Schisms in Groups

The authors present and test a model of schismatic processes in social groups. According to this model, schismatic intentions are caused by the perception that a proposed new norm fundamentally changes a central aspect of group identity. Also, the impact of this perception on schismatic intentions is mediated by the belief that group identity has been subverted, whose effect on schismatic intentions is, in turn, mediated by perceived inability to voice dissent and perceived lack of group entitativity. Data from officials of the Church of England who are against the ordination of women to the priesthood (N = 211) fit the predicted model.

The Social Psychology of Intergroup Toleration

The global increase in cultural and religious diversity has led to calls for toleration of group differences to achieve intergroup harmony. Although much social-psychological research has examined the nature of stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination, and its impact on targets of these biases, little research has examined the nature and impact of toleration for intergroup relations. Toleration does not require that people give up their objections to out-group norms and practices but rather mutual accommodation. Integrating research from various social sciences, we explore the nature of intergroup tolerance including its three components—objection, acceptance, and rejection—while drawing out its implications for future social-psychological research. We then explore some psychological consequences to social groups that are the object of toleration. By doing so, we consider the complex ways in which intergroup tolerance impacts both majority and minority groups and the dynamic interplay of both in pluralistic societies.

When ingroups aren't "In": perceived political belief similarity moderates religious ingroup favoritism

Motivated thinking leads people to perceive similarity between the self and ingroups, but under some conditions, people may recognize that personal beliefs are misaligned with the beliefs of ingroups. In two focal experiments and two replications, we find evidence that perceived belief similarity moderates ingroup favoritism. As part of a charity donation task, participants donated money to a community charity or a religious charity. Compared to non-religious people, Christians favored religious charities, but within Christians, conservative Christians favored religious charities more than liberal Christians did. Experiment 2 demonstrated that the perceived political beliefs of the charity accounted for the differences in ingroup favoritism between liberal and conservative Christians. While reporting little awareness of the influence of ideology, Christian conservatives favored religious charities because they perceived them as conservative and liberal Christians favored the community charity because they perceived it as liberal.

Loyal Deviance: Testing the Normative Conflict Model of Dissent in Social Groups

The normative conflict model predicts that expressions of dissent within groups can be motivated by the collective interest and that strongly identified members may dissent from group norms if and when they are perceived to be harmful to the collective. We present convergent evidence from four studies in support of the model. Study 1 investigated retrospective reports of disagreements and found that strongly identified members reported collectively oriented motives for expressing disagreement within their groups. Studies 2a and 2b provided experimental tests of the prediction that strongly identified group members are willing to dissent when they reflect on how a norm could harm their group but not when they reflect on negative individualistic consequences of the same norm. Finally, Study 3 replicated these effects using a correlational design that measured actual opinion expression in an ostensible online chat room.

Aligning Identities, Emotions, and Beliefs to Create Commitment to Sustainable Social and Political Action

In this article the authors explore the social psychological processes underpinning sustainable commitment to a social or political cause. Drawing on recent developments in the collective action, identity formation, and social norm literatures, they advance a new model to understand sustainable commitment to action. The normative alignment model suggests that one solution to promoting ongoing commitment to collective action lies in crafting a social identity with a relevant pattern of norms for emotion, efficacy, and action. Rather than viewing group emotion, collective efficacy, and action as group products, the authors conceptualize norms about these as contributing to a dynamic system of meaning, which can shape ongoing commitment to a cause. By exploring emotion, efficacy, and action as group norms, it allows scholars to reenergize the theoretical connections between collective identification and subjective meaning but also allows for a fresh perspective on complex questions of causality.

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 10 Years On: Development, Impact and Future Directions

The development of this Journal, Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, is reviewed. Throughout its first 10 years, the Journal has been supported by a strong editorial board. It has sustained a significant profile in social psychology in the area of both intergroup and small group processes. Its wider impact includes connection to related disciplines such as organizational behavior and neuroscience, focused special issues, small conferences related to the theme of the Journal and the expansion of group and intergroup research through learned societies. The editors thank authors, editorial board members, editorial assistants, reviewers and readers for their support.

On Being Both With Us and Against Us: A Normative Conflict Model of Dissent in Social Groups

Although past research has demonstrated a positive relationship between collective identification and normative conformity, there may be circumstances in which strongly identified members do not conform but instead choose to challenge group norms. This article proposes a normative conflict model, which distinguishes between nonconformity due to dissent (challenging norms to change them) and nonconformity due to disengagement (distancing oneself from the group). The normative conflict model predicts that strongly identified members are likely to challenge group norms when they experience conflict between norms and important alternate standards for behavior, in particular when they perceive norms as being harmful to the group. Data in support of the model are reviewed, mechanisms by which external variables may influence dissent in social groups are elaborated, and the model is linked to contemporary perspectives on collective identity.