IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v7y2017i2p2158244017708819.html

A Social Movement Identity Instrument for Integrating Survey Methods Into Social Movements Research

Author

Listed:
  • Summer Allen
  • Aaron M. McCright
  • Thomas Dietz

Abstract

Given increasing scholarly recognition of the need to better understand the factors that influence identification with or participation in social movements, we build upon recent work that integrates public opinion methods and analytical techniques into social movements research. Specifically, we revise an existing measure of environmental movement identity into a general measure of identification with a broad range of movements. Our analyses show that this new instrument captures meaningful variation across levels of identification with 20 major U.S. social movements and also helps distinguish among three movement identity clusters that largely align with key movement families. Furthermore, we provide strong evidence that our instrument has construct validity, as selected predictors explain variation in the three movement identity clusters in ways expected by previous research. We close by proposing an agenda for future research that helps advance our understanding of public support for or engagement with social movements.

Suggested Citation

  • Summer Allen & Aaron M. McCright & Thomas Dietz, 2017. "A Social Movement Identity Instrument for Integrating Survey Methods Into Social Movements Research," SAGE Open, , vol. 7(2), pages 21582440177, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:7:y:2017:i:2:p:2158244017708819
    DOI: 10.1177/2158244017708819
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2158244017708819
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2158244017708819?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. Neil Stewart & Christoph Ungemach & Adam J. L. Harris & Daniel M. Bartels & Ben R. Newell & Gabriele Paolacci & Jesse Chandler, "undated". "The Average Laboratory Samples a Population of 7,300 Amazon Mechanical Turk Workers," Mathematica Policy Research Reports f97b669c7b3e4c2ab95c9f805, Mathematica Policy Research.
    2. Neil Stewart & Christoph Ungemach & Adam J. L. Harris & Daniel M. Bartels & Ben R. Newell & Gabriele Paolacci & Jesse Chandler, 2015. "The average laboratory samples a population of 7,300 Amazon Mechanical Turk workers," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 10(5), pages 479-491, September.
    3. Kevin E. Levay & Jeremy Freese & James N. Druckman, 2016. "The Demographic and Political Composition of Mechanical Turk Samples," SAGE Open, , vol. 6(1), pages 21582440166, March.
    4. Aaron M. McCright & Riley E. Dunlap, 2015. "Comparing Two Measures of Social Movement Identity: The Environmental Movement as an Example," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 96(2), pages 400-416, June.
    5. Riley E. Dunlap & Aaron M. McCright, 2008. "Social Movement Identity: Validating a Measure of Identification with the Environmental Movement," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 89(5), pages 1045-1065, December.
    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. Kevin C Elliott & Aaron M McCright & Summer Allen & Thomas Dietz, 2017. "Values in environmental research: Citizens’ views of scientists who acknowledge values," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-18, October.
    2. Roman Lukyanenko & Andrea Wiggins & Holly K. Rosser, 0. "Citizen Science: An Information Quality Research Frontier," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-23.
    3. Logan S. Casey & Jesse Chandler & Adam Seth Levine & Andrew Proctor & Dara Z. Strolovitch, 2017. "Intertemporal Differences Among MTurk Workers: Time-Based Sample Variations and Implications for Online Data Collection," SAGE Open, , vol. 7(2), pages 21582440177, June.
    4. Capraro, Valerio & Schulz, Jonathan & Rand, David G., 2019. "Time pressure and honesty in a deception game," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 93-99.
    5. Antonio A. Arechar & Simon Gächter & Lucas Molleman, 2018. "Conducting interactive experiments online," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 21(1), pages 99-131, March.
    6. Cl'ement Le Ludec & Paola Tubaro & Antonio A. Casilli, 2019. "How many people microwork in France? Estimating the size of a new labor force," Papers 1901.03889, arXiv.org.
    7. Anthony M. Evans & Joachim I. Krueger, 2017. "Ambiguity and expectation-neglect in dilemmas of interpersonal trust," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 12(6), pages 584-595, November.
    8. Brandi S. Morris & Polymeros Chrysochou & Jacob Dalgaard Christensen & Jacob L. Orquin & Jorge Barraza & Paul J. Zak & Panagiotis Mitkidis, 2019. "Stories vs. facts: triggering emotion and action-taking on climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 154(1), pages 19-36, May.
    9. Fiona Charnley & Fabienne Knecht & Helge Muenkel & Diana Pletosu & Victoria Rickard & Chiara Sambonet & Martina Schneider & Chunli Zhang, 2022. "Can Digital Technologies Increase Consumer Acceptance of Circular Business Models? The Case of Second Hand Fashion," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-21, April.
    10. Xiaochuan Song & Graham H. Lowman & Peter Harms, 2020. "Justice for the Crowd: Organizational Justice and Turnover in Crowd-Based Labor," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-37, November.
    11. Cloos, Janis & Greiff, Matthias & Rusch, Hannes, 2020. "Geographical Concentration and Editorial Favoritism within the Field of Laboratory Experimental Economics (RM/19/029-revised-)," Research Memorandum 014, Maastricht University, Graduate School of Business and Economics (GSBE).
    12. Austin M Strange & Ryan D Enos & Mark Hill & Amy Lakeman, 2019. "Online volunteer laboratories for human subjects research," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-13, August.
    13. David Ronayne & Daniel Sgroi, 2018. "On the motivations for the dual-use of electronic and traditional cigarettes," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(12), pages 830-834, July.
    14. Christ, Margaret H. & Vance, Thomas W., 2018. "Cascading controls: The effects of managers’ incentives on subordinate effort to help or harm," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 20-32.
    15. Cloos, Janis & Greiff, Matthias & Rusch, Hannes, 2019. "Geographical Concentration and Editorial Favoritism within the Field of Laboratory Experimental Economics," Research Memorandum 029, Maastricht University, Graduate School of Business and Economics (GSBE).
    16. Palan, Stefan & Schitter, Christian, 2018. "Prolific.ac—A subject pool for online experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 22-27.
    17. Clément Le Ludec & Paola Tubaro & Antonio A. Casilli, 2019. "Combien de personnes micro-travaillent en France ? Estimer l'ampleur d'une nouvelle forme de travail," Working Papers hal-02021525, HAL.
    18. Sergio Alessandro Castagnetti & Sebastiano Massaro & Eugenio Proto, 2021. "The Influence of Anger on Strategic Cooperative Interactions," Working Papers 2021_05, Business School - Economics, University of Glasgow.
    19. Keela S. Thomson & Daniel M. Oppenheimer, 2016. "Investigating an alternate form of the cognitive reflection test," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 11(1), pages 99-113, January.
    20. Tom Meyvis & Stijn M J Van Osselaer & Dahl DarrenEditor & Eileen FischerEditor & Gita JoharEditor & Vicki MorwitzEditor, 2018. "Increasing the Power of Your Study by Increasing the Effect Size," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 44(5), pages 1157-1173.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:sae:sagope:v:7:y:2017:i:2:p:2158244017708819. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.