Abstract
The current study examines the nature of actions that U.S. college women (N = 267) engage in to promote, protect, or enhance the welfare of other women. The study had two goals: 1) to distinguish between traditional forms of action (traditional collective action) and more informal, interpersonal, forms of action (small acts) among college women; and 2) to test whether the classic antecedents of collective action (gender identity, feminist identity, women’s activist identity, efficacy, appraisals of gender inequality, and injustice standards) are differentially predictive of these two types of participation. A confirmatory factor analysis provided strong support for these two distinct forms of participation: traditional collective action and small acts. Moreover, whereas women’s activist identity was the only predictor of traditional collective action, all predictors except gender identification and perceived group efficacy predicted small acts. Practical and theoretical implications for mobilizing college women for traditional collective action versus small acts are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Availability of Data and Material
The data set and study forms associated with this submission are available upon request from the first author.
References
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411
Bakker, T. P., & de Vreese, C. H. (2011). Good news for the future? Young people, internet use, and political participation. Communication Research, 38(4), 451–470. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650210381738
Becker, J. C., & Wagner, U. (2009). Doing gender differently: the interplay of strength of gender identification and content of gender identity in predicting women’s endorsement of sexist beliefs. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39(4), 487–508. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.551
Bond, R. M., Fariss, C. J., Jones, J. J., Kramer, A. D., Marlow, C., Settle, J. E., & Fowler, J. H. (2012). A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization. Nature, 489(7415), 295–298. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11421
Boulianne, S., & Theocharis, Y. (2020). Young people, digital media, and engagement: a meta-analysis of research. Social Science Computer Review, 38(2), 111–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439318814190
Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied researchers. The Guildford Press.
Burn, S. M., Aboud, R., & Moyles, C. (2000). The relationship between gender social identity and support for feminism. Sex Roles, 42(11–12), 1081–1089. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007044802798
Burns, N., Scholzman, K. I., & Verba, S. (2001). The private roots of public action. Harvard University Press.
Cole, E. R., & Stewart, A. J. (1996). Meanings of political participation among Black and White women: Political identity and social responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1), 130–140. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.1.130
Curtin, N., Stewart, A. J., & Duncan, L. E. (2010). What makes the political personal? Openness, personal political salience, and activism. Journal of Personality, 78(3), 943–968. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00638.x
Drury, J., & Reicher, S. D. (2000). Collective action and psychological change: the emergence of new social identities. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39(4), 579–604. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466600164642
Duncan, L. E. (1999). Motivation for collective action: Group consciousness as mediator of personality, life experiences, and women’s rights activism. Political Psychology, 20(3), 611–635. https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.00159
Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and society. Norton.
Fieck, M., Miron, A. M., Branscombe, N. R., & Mazurek, R. (2020). We stand up for each other!: an interpretative phenomenological analysis of collective action among U.S. college women. Sex Roles, 83(11), 657–674. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-020-01144-y
Foster, M. D. (2015). Tweeting about sexism: the well-being benefits of a social media collective action. British Journal of Social Psychology, 54(4), 629–647. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12101
Gil de Zúñiga, H., Molyneux, L., & Zheng, P. (2014). Social media, political expression, and political participation: Panel analysis of lagged and concurrent relationships. Journal of Communication, 64(4), 612–634. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12103
Gurin, P., Miller, A. H., & Gurin, G. (1980). Stratum identification and consciousness. Social Psychology Quarterly, 43(1), 30–47. https://doi.org/10.2307/3033746
Hornsey, M. J., Blackwood, L., Louis, W., Fielding, K., Mavor, K., Morton, T., O’Brien, A., Paasonen, K.-E., Smith, J., & White, K. M. (2006). Why do people engage in collective action? Revisiting the role of perceived effectiveness. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(7), 1701–1722. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00077.x
Horowitz, J. (2017). Who is this we you speak of? Grounding activist identity in social psychology. Socius. https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023117717819
Iyer, A., & Ryan, M. K. (2009). Why do men and women challenge gender discrimination? The role of group status and in-group identification in predicting pathways to collective action. Journal of Social Issues, 65(4), 791–814. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2009.01625.x
Jetten, J., Branscombe, N. R., Iyer, A., & Asai, N. (2013). Appraising gender discrimination as legitimate or illegitimate: Antecedents and consequences. In M. K. Ryan & N. R. Branscombe (Eds.), Handbook of gender and psychology (pp. 306–322). Sage.
Jost, J. T., Barbera, P., Bonneau, R., Langer, M., Metzger, M., Nagler, J., Sterling, J., & Tucker, J. A. (2018). How social media facilitates political protest: Information, motivation, and social networks. Political Psychology, 39(Suppl 1), 85–118. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12478
Kelly, C., & Breinlinger, S. (1995). Identity and injustice: Exploring women’s participation in collective action. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 5(1), 41–57. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2450050104
Klandermans, B. (1984). Mobilization and participation: Social psychological expansions of resource mobilization theory. American Sociological Review, 49(5), 583–600. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095417
Klandermans, B., & Oegema, D. (1987). Potentials, networks, motivations, and barriers: Steps towards participation in social movements. American Sociological Review, 52(4), 519–531. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-014-9692-9
Liss, M., Crawford, M., & Popp, D. (2004). Predictors and correlates of collective action. Sex Roles, 50(11), 771–779. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SERS.0000029096.90835.3f
Louis, W. R. (2009). Collective action—and then what? Journal of Social Issues, 65(4), 727–748. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2009.01623.x
Louis, W. R., Amiot, C. E., Thomas, E. F., & Blackwood, L. (2016). The activist identity and activism across domains: a multiple identities analysis. Journal of Social Issues, 72(2), 242–263. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12165
Marsh, D., & Akram, S. (2015). Political participation and citizen engagement: Beyond the mainstream. Policy Studies, 36(6), 523–531. https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2015.1109616
Miron, A. M., Branscombe, N. R., & Biernat, M. R. (2010). Motivated shifting of justice standards. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(6), 768–779. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210370031
Miron, A. M., Branscombe, N. R., Lishner, D. A., Otradovec, A. C., Frankowski, S., Bowers, H. R., Wierzba, B. L., & Malcore, M. (2020). The effect of perspective taking on injustice standards and empathic concern when the victim is categorized as outgroup versus ingroup. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 42(5), 305–323. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2020.1768096
Miron, A. M., Warner, R., & Branscombe, N. R. (2011). Accounting for group differences in appraisals of social inequality: Differential injustice standards. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50(2), 342–353. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.2010.02009.x
Moane, G. (2011). Gender and colonialism: a psychological analysis of oppression and liberation. Palgrave Macmillan.
Mummendey, A., Kessler, T., Klink, A., & Mielke, R. (1999). Strategies to cope with negative social identity: Predictions by social identity theory and relative deprivation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(2), 229–245. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.2.229
Nelson, J. A., Liss, M., Erchull, M. J., Hurt, M. M., Ramsey, L. R., Turner, D. L., & Haines, M. E. (2008). Identity in action: Predictors of feminist self-identification and collective action. Sex Roles, 58(9), 721–728. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9384-0
Ohme, J., de Vreese, C., & Albæk, E. (2018). From theory to practice: How to apply van Deth’s conceptual map in empirical political participation research. Acta Politica, 53(3), 367–390. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41269-017-0056-y
Postmes, T., & Brunsting, S. (2002). Collective action in the age of the Internet: Mass communication and online mobilization. Social Science Computer Review, 20(3), 290–301. https://doi.org/10.1177/089443930202000306
Postmes, T., Haslam, S. A., & Jans, L. (2013). A single-item measure of social identification: Reliability, validity, and utility. British Journal of Social Psychology, 52(4), 597–617. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12006
Radke, H. R. M., Hornsey, M. J., & Barlow, F. K. (2016). Barriers to women engaging in collective action to overcome sexism. American Psychologist, 71, 863–874. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0040345
R Core Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL: https://www.R-project.org/
Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: an R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
Savaş, Ö., & Stewart, A. J. (2019). Alternative pathways to activism: Intersections of social and personal pasts in the narratives of women’s rights activists. Qualitative Psychology, 6(1), 27–46. https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000117
Schmitt, M. T., Mackay, C. M. L., Droogendyk, L. M., & Payne, D. (2019). What predicts environmental activism? The roles of identification with nature and politicized environmental identity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 61(A1-A4), 20–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2018.11.003
Simon, B., & Klandermans, B. (2001). Politicized collective identity: a social psychological analysis. American Psychologist, 56(4), 319–331. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.4.319
Simon, B., Loewy, M., Stürmer, S., Weber, U., Freytag, P., Habig, C., Kampmeier, C., & Spahlinger, P. (1998). Collective identification and social movement participation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(3), 646–658. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.3.646
Steinem, G. (2012). Revolution from within. Open Road Media.
Stewart, A. J., & McDermott, C. (2004). Civic engagement, political identity, and generation in developmental context. Research in Human Development, 1(3), 189–203. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15427617rhd0103_4
Stewart, T. L., Latu, I. M., Branscombe, N. R., & Denney, H. T. (2010). Yes we can!: Prejudice reduction through seeing (inequality) and believing (in social change). Psychological Science, 21(11), 1557–1562. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610385354
Stroebe, K., Postmes, T., & Roos, C. A. (2019). Where did inaction go? Towards a broader and more refined perspective on collective actions. British Journal of Social Psychology, 58(3), 649–667. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12295
Stürmer, S., & Simon, B. (2004). The role of collective identification in social movement participation: a panel study in the context of the German Gay Movement. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(3), 263–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203256690
Tausch, N., & Becker, J. C. (2013). Emotional reactions to success and failure of collective action as predictors of future action intentions: a longitudinal investigation in the context of student protests in Germany. British Journal of Social Psychology, 52(3), 525–542. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.2012.02109.x
Theocharis, Y., & van Deth, J. (2018). The continuous expansion of citizen participation: a new taxonomy. European Political Science Review, 10(1), 139–163. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773916000230
van Deth, J. (2014). A conceptual map of political participation. Acta Politica, 49, 349–367. https://doi.org/10.1057/ap.2014.6
Van Stekelenburg, J., Klandermans, B., & Van Dijk, W. W. (2009). Context matters: Explaining how and why mobilizing context influences motivational dynamics. Journal of Social Issues, 65(4), 815–838. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2009.01626.x
van Zomeren, M., Kutlaca, M., & Turner-Zwinkels, F. (2018). Integrating who we are with what we (will not) stand for: a further extension of the Social Identity Model of Collective Action. European Review of Social Psychology, 29(1), 122–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2018.1479347
van Zomeren, M., Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2008). Toward an integrative social identity model of collective action: a quantitative research synthesis of three socio-psychological perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 134(4), 504–535. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.504
van Zomeren, M., Spears, R., Fischer, A. H., & Leach, C. W. (2004). Put your money where your mouth is! Explaining collective action tendencies through group-based anger and group efficacy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(5), 649–664. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.5.649
Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Burns, N. (2005). Family ties: Understanding the intergenerational transmission of political participation. In A. S. Zuckerman (Ed.), The social logic of politics: Personal networks as contexts for political behavior (pp. 95–116). Temple University Press.
Weis, A. S., Redford, L., Zucker, A. N., & Ratliff, K. A. (2018). Attitudes toward feminist prototypes, feminist identity, and willingness to intervene when confronted with everyday sexist events. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 42(3), 279–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684318764694
Wolf, E. J., Harrington, K. M., Clark, S. L., & Miller, M. W. (2013). Sample size requirements for structural equation models: An evaluation of power, bias, and solution propriety. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 76(6), 913–934. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164413495237
Yoder, J. D., Tobias, A., & Snell, A. F. (2011). When declaring I am a feminist matters: Labeling is linked to activism. Sex Roles, 64(1), 9–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9890-3
Zucker, A. N. (2004). Disavowing social identities: What it means when women say, I’m not a feminist, but…. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28(4), 423–435. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2004.00159.x
Zucker, A. N., Ostrove, J. M., & Stewart, A. J. (2002). College-educated women’s personality development in adulthood: Perceptions and age differences. Psychology and Aging, 17(2), 236–244. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.17.2.236
Zuckerman, E. (2014). New media, new civics? Policy & Internet, 6(2), 151–168. https://doi.org/10.1002/1944-2866.POI360
Funding
No funding was received for conducting this study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics Approval
This study was approved by the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh Institutional Review Board (IRB protocol#E19-45).
Consent to Participate
All participants provided consent for their participation in the study.
Conflicts of Interest
None of the authors has a conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Miron, A.M., Ball, T.C., Branscombe, N.R. et al. Collective Action on Behalf of Women: Testing the Conceptual Distinction Between Traditional Collective Action and Small Acts in College Women. Sex Roles 86, 415–427 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-022-01279-0
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-022-01279-0