IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0230918.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Maja Kutlaca
  • Martijn van Zomeren
  • Kai Epstude

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Maja Kutlaca & Martijn van Zomeren & Kai Epstude, 2020. "Friends or foes? How activists and non-activists perceive and evaluate each other," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(4), pages 1-19, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0230918
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0230918
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0230918
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0230918&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0230918?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kirsten Thommes & Agnes Akkerman & René Torenvlied & Marieke Born, 2014. "The dark side of solidarity: social norms and social relations in the aftermath of strikes," Industrial Relations Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(4), pages 348-367, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kyung nok Chun & Zachary Schaller & Stergios Skaperdas, 2020. "Why Are There Strikes?," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 130(6), pages 929-956.
    2. Agnes Akkerman, 2014. "Involuntary disputes: When competition for members forces smaller unions to strike," Rationality and Society, , vol. 26(4), pages 446-474, November.
    3. Agnes Akkerman & Roderick Sluiter & Katerina Manevska, 2022. "Let’s take it outside: Seeking alternative targets for expressing dissent at work when voice is suppressed," Economic and Industrial Democracy, Department of Economic History, Uppsala University, Sweden, vol. 43(4), pages 1767-1788, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0230918. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.