Introduction

Based on a national Gallup poll conducted at the end of 2021, it was reported that the popularity of the American labor movement was at the highest it had been in decades, with 68% of Americans approving of unions (Kim, 2022). Conducted again at the end of 2022, it was reported that the movement’s popularity had expanded, with 71% approving of unions (Johnston, 2022). During the same time period, as indexed by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the national rate of union membership did not change, remaining essentially flat, with just over 10% of American employees belonging to a union (Union Affiliation, 2023). Begged is a question about the enormity of the gap between public sentiment (how employees feel about unions) and willingness to act (how employees act in accordance with a union), in which answers in the form of contributing factors and underlying processes have been sought to explain how—in this specific case—sentiment relates to action.

We are not alone in articulating the “gap question,” nor in bringing attention to a search for answers. Many labor scholars and social commentators have been equally intrigued by the question and have highlighted the rise of external factors to formulate a picture of answers (see comments by Ruth Milkman in Johnston, 2022; see also Gonnerman, 2023; Rhinehart et al., 2021; Van Bavel & Packer, 2021). Among the more widely circulated and accepted factors point to: (a) the further entrenchment of U.S. labor laws unfavorable to unions backed by recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings; (b) the prominent gutting of personnel and resources made available to the National Labor Relations Board, a federal agency charged with enforcing extant labor laws and regulating union elections; and (c) the meteoric rise of a competitive consulting industry offering affordable year-round “tactical programs to eradicate the union threat” (see Fletcher & La Luz, 2020; Hogler, 2020; Logan, 2020; Mellor, 2022a; Mishel et al., 2020; Peterson, 2020 for illustrative external factor studies and detailed commentaries).

In contrast to highlighting additional external factors to fill in the picture of answers, our study brings attention to internal processes that link sentiment to action in reference to union joining. By internal, we mean processes that highlight the psychological experience of American nonunion employees in reference to unions, tapping into emotional elements directed at unions and linking such elements to consequent willingness to join a union. Specifically, we draw deductive insight from the psychodynamics literature, showing links between negative social emotions and willingness to join, in which emotions projected onto unions are thought to unfold through union intolerance.

In presenting our study, we first define our constructs and outline the relevant research used in the construction of our model, followed by the extraction of the process logic of mediation and moderated mediation to reveal our thinking about how negative social emotions unfold in relation to willingness to join a union. Set as a hypothesized model, we include a thorough presentation of how we collected data and the measures we used, followed by a presentation of model tests used to examine the fit of the model to the data. Our discussion of model results is replete with data-driven reflected thinking about how union sentiment and union joining are linked in reference to nonunion employees and, in reference to application, how unions can close the gap between the two.

Negative Social Emotions

As might be expected, the study of negative social emotions in clinical and non-clinical realms of psychology is broad and deep (see Damasio, 2021; Mesquita, 2022 for recent comprehensive and cutting-edge treatments). As social emotions, they are assumed to be conscious or liminal (between unconscious and conscious) and, as such, are amenable to self-report (see Kristjánsson, 2013; Lenski, 1961 for example studies).

Distilled from studies with a decidedly global or cross-cultural focus on negative social emotions, and interchangeably referred to as unacceptable emotions or as intolerable vices (e.g., Doebler, 2014; Halman & Vloet, 1994; Schultz et al., 2019; Seuntjens et al., 2015; Sterling et al., 2017; Vecchio, 2000; Yan & Sorenson, 2006), we developed the following constructs for the emotions included in our study:

  • Anger: feeling resentment toward others, wishing to enact vengeance or revenge on others

  • Apathy: feeling indifferent (don’t care) about commitments made to others, wishing to spend the least possible time or energy on the wants or needs of others

  • Envy: wishing to possess what others possess, and if not possible, wishing that others are deprived of what they possess

  • Gluttony: feeling indifferent (don’t care) about the use of possessions to the point of waste—possessions such as one’s time, energy, or accomplishments

  • Greed: wishing to possess as much as can be possessed, even if possession means little can be possessed by others

  • Lust: feeling that others can be manipulated, treated like objects or pawns to meet one’s wants or needs

  • Pride: feeling superior to others, wishing to be treated as superior by others

Union Intolerance

Our interest in negative social emotions is linked to our interest in union intolerance. As a psychological construct developed to predict “willingness to join a union,” union intolerance describes an emotional state of sustained hatred directed at unions as experienced by nonunion employees, in which, unions—in the broadest sense—are perceived to encourage intolerable vices in employees, especially in union employees who are seen as first-line recipients of such encouragement (Mellor, 2023).

Based on a measure of union intolerance, studies have shown expected associations with other variables (Mellor, 2022b, 2022c, 2023). To wit, using data from samples of nonunion employees, union intolerance is shown to be negatively associated with willingness to join a union, and positively associated with general intolerance of stigmatized social groups (e.g., immigrants). Also, union intolerance is shown to be negatively associated with collective reliance (e.g., reliance on a collective for pay and benefits) as opposed to self-reliance, and negatively associated with support for the Protecting the Right to Organize Act (the PRO Act), a proposed labor law passed by the U.S. House of Representatives in 2021.

Linking Mechanism

In conducting our study, we sought insight from the psychodynamic literature on defense mechanisms to suggest how negative social emotions relate to union intolerance (see A. Freud, 1936/1993 for a narrative introduction to psychodynamics). This literature rests on the assumption that every culture generates socialization processes by which inhibitions are overlaid onto unacceptable emotions.Footnote 1 Given the assumption, suggested is that the enactment of these emotions can induce hatred turned inward (e.g., self-loathing; see Alperin, 2016) or hatred turned outward (e.g., stereotyping; see Newman et al., 2005). Consequently, thought to emerge are defense mechanisms intended to mask intrapsychic conflict stemming from recognizable impulses to reenact such emotions. Although some defense mechanisms are deemed mature, in that they resolve the conflict (e.g., sublimation; see Kim et al., 2013), other mechanisms are deemed less mature, in that they require a continuous investment of psychic energy to maintain (see Clark, 1998; Conte & Plutchik, 1995 for perspectives on defense mechanisms and mental health).

In the literature, a less mature defense mechanism often associated with intolerance of groups of others is projection—also known as displacement of attribution or scapegoating (see Glick, 2005; Newman et al., 1997)—in which conflict can be masked by projecting impulses to reenact unacceptable emotions onto others identified by their group membership. Adapted to the experience of nonunion employees in reference to unions, suggested in our study is that union intolerance can be viewed as an emotional state of readiness to project unacceptable emotions onto unions, in which, consistent with the intolerance construct and with projection, unions are perceived to encourage such emotions in union employees.

Process and Conditions

To demonstrate this application of projection, we turned to the logic of mediation and to conditional aspects of mediation known as moderated mediation (see Hayes, 2022; Hayes & Rockwood, 2020 for critical reading on new advances in process analytics). In reference to mediation, modeled is a hypothesized sequence (a series of paths), in which the effect of a predictor (x) on an outcome (y) is suggested as related to the effect of a third variable positioned as a mediator (m). In symbol form, the sequence is shown as a two-path, three-variable model (x → m →y). Adapted to our study, we positioned negative social emotions as a predictor, union intolerance as a mediator, and willingness to join a union as an outcome (negative social emotions →union intolerance → willingness to join a union).

In reference to moderation, to infer that negative social emotions are projected onto unions in relation to union intolerance, we represented the logic of projection with a conditional fourth model variable positioned as a moderator (w). In that projection of unacceptable emotions onto groups of others is more likely under conditions of limited exposure rather than extended exposure to the group in question, positioned in the model is prior union membership as a moderator, in which hypothesized is that the strength of the negative social emotions to union intolerance path (negative social emotions →union intolerance) is stronger for nonunion employees who have no prior membership in contrast to nonunion employees who have prior membership.

Also positioned in the model as an experiential variable is a second moderator (z), a fifth model variable represented as perceived union discrimination. To the extent that nonunion employees have experienced work- or job-related discrimination attributed to a union due to their non-member status (e.g., blocked from getting a job, skipped over for a preferred work assignment), hypothesized is that the union intolerance to willingness to join path (union intolerance → willingness to join a union) is stronger for nonunion employees who report discrimination in contrast to nonunion employees who do not.

Model and Hypotheses

With model variables positioned as indicated, the hypothesized moderated mediation model is presented in Fig. 1. As such, we tested the following hypotheses:

  • Hypothesis 1: Employees who report more negative social emotions are expected to indicate less willingness to join a union, but the relationship between negative social emotions and willingness to join is expected to unfold through (is mediated by) union intolerance, such that negative social emotions are associated with union intolerance, and in turn, intolerance is associated with willingness to join.

  • Hypothesis 2: The mediation as stated in Hypothesis 1 (negative social emotions → union intolerance → willingness to join a union) is expected to be conditional on (is moderated by) prior union membership and perceived union discrimination, such that the relationship between negative social emotions and union intolerance is stronger for employees who have no prior membership, and the relationship between union intolerance and willingness to join is stronger for employees who report union discrimination.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Hypothesized model (moderated mediation)

Full size image

Method

Procedure

Anonymous survey data were collected from American employees beginning in September 2022 and ending in December 2022. Survey sites were community gatherings and public transportation areas (e.g., seasonal farmers’ markets, church social hours, airport wait areas, commuter train stations).Footnote 2

With permission obtained at each site, the researchers circulated flyers with the following information:

“Can you volunteer to take this survey? You can if you are employed in the United States and not a full-time student. The survey is anonymous—no names. The survey takes less than 10 minutes to complete. The survey cannot be mailed. $5 is given for taking the survey. Please ask the researcher for a survey.”

Employees who responded to the flyer were given a pencil, a no-name informed consent form, a survey, and an unmarked envelope. The researchers collected surveys in sealed envelopes, paid participants, and conducted onsite debriefing.Footnote 3

Sampling

To ensure that sampling resulted in data appropriate to test the hypothesized model, the survey was embedded with eligibility items.Footnote 4 We excluded surveys in which responses indicated: (a) not currently employed in the U.S. and (b) currently a union member. An additional check for careless responses resulted in excluded surveys if responses indicated the same scale anchor for long strings of consecutive items (e.g., a page of items).

Based on 402 returned surveys with no missing data, 385 surveys were counted as eligible. Eligible surveys included employees from 18 U.S. States: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, and Washington, and the District of Columbia.

Measures

Demographics

Assessed demographics included age (indicated in years), gender (coded as either man (0) or woman (1)); ethnic group (coded as either nonethnic (0, White, European American) or ethnic (1, African American, Asian, Pacific Islander American, Latinx American, Middle Eastern, Arabian American)); employment status (coded as either part-time (0) or full-time (1), and prior union membership (coded as either no (0) or yes (1)).

Eighty-eight percent of employees were age 25 years or older (the median age was 42; the range in years was 18 to 80). Fifty-two percent were women employees. Thirty-nine percent identified themselves as ethnic. Seventy-three percent were full-time employees. Twenty-three percent indicated prior union membership.

To estimate the representativeness of the sample with respect to the 2022 population of American nonunion employees, the 2023 January issue of the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics was consulted (Union Affiliation, 2023). In doing so, we compared the percentages in the sample for age group, gender, ethnic group, and employment status with reported national percentages. The results indicated that employees 25 years or older, women employees, and ethnic employees were oversampled by 7% or less, + 0.023, + 0.036, + 0.065, respectively. The results also indicated that full-time employees were undersampled by 11%, -0.107.

Negative Social Emotions

To assess negative social emotions, we asked employees to respond to seven items drawn from self-report measures of anger, apathy, envy, gluttony, greed, lust, and pride (e.g., Vecchio, 2000; Veselka et al., 2014; see Mellor, 2022c for a list of items).

The items were prefaced with the statement:

“We are interested in how often you have experienced the feelings listed below during the past several months.”

The statement was followed with a response instruction:

“For every item on this page, write in one number in the blank using the following scale:”

Response options were:

“7 = all of the time, 6 = most of the time, 5 = a good bit of the time, 4 = as much of the time as not, 3 = some of the time, 2 = a little bit of the time, 1 = none of the time.”

The options were followed by an item stem:

“When I think about how I have felt during the past several months . . .”

An example item keyed to anger is:

“I have felt resentful of others, wishing to enact vengeance or revenge on others.”

A principal components analysis was performed on the items. The analysis produced one eigenvalue greater than 1.00, λ = 5.023, % of variance explained = 62.791, item loadings ≥ 0.423. The Cronbach’s \(a\) for the items was 0.89.

As a result of these analyses, responses were averaged, yielding continuous negative social emotions scale scores from 1 (less negative) to 7 (more negative).

Union Intolerance

To assess union intolerance, we asked employees to respond to 12 items from the union intolerance scale developed by Mellor (2023; see Mellor, 2022c for a list of items).

The items were prefaced with the statement:

“We are interested in what you think about labor unions.

Below are statements taken from various Internet blogs, in which bloggers expressed their willingness or unwillingness to tolerate a union should they be required to join a union or should they be given a choice to join a union.

Please read each statement carefully and decide for yourself.”

The statements were followed with a response instruction:

“Check (√) one blank.”

And an item stem:

“I am willing to tolerate a union or I am not willing to tolerate a union . . .”

An example item keyed to anger is:

“. . . that tells members of the union that when an employer issues a statement like “here at this company, we are one team, with one goal to make our company the best it can be,” that members should ask about how many seats will be reserved on the board of directors for union members.”

The response options were:

“willing to tolerate” or “not willing to tolerate.”

A principal components analysis was performed on the items. The analysis produced one eigenvalue greater than 1.00, λ = 6.478, % of variance explained = 45.649 item loadings ≥ 0.406. The \(a\) for the items was 0.84.

As a result of these analyses, responses were averaged, yielding continuous union intolerance scale scores from 0 (less intolerance) to 1.00 (more intolerance).

Willingness to Join a Union

To assess willingness to join a union, we asked employees to respond to an item to indicate their willingness to join (see similar one-item measures used by DeCotiis & LeLouarn, 1981; Mellor & Kath, 2011).

The item was prefaced with the statement:

“We are interested in your willingness to join a labor union.”

And a request to read the following statements:

“IF there is a union elected in your work environment to represent you and your coworkers, assume that the union contract is current.

IF there is no union in your work environment, assume that a union has been recently elected to represent you and your coworkers—and that the union contract is current.

Below are two response options—you are free to choose either option.

No matter which option you choose, you and your coworkers will be covered by the union contract.

IF you choose to join the union, you will be a union member, you will pay to be represented by the union (your paycheck will show a deductible paid to the union, a deductible labeled as union dues).

IF you choose not to join the union, you will be a non-union employee, you will not pay to be represented by the union (your paycheck will not show a deductible paid to the union).”

The statements were followed with a response instruction:

“Check (√) one blank.”

And an item stem:

“I am...”

The response options were:

“ . . .willing to join the union as a member or . . . not willing to join the union as a member.”

Options were coded as 1 or 0, respectively, where 1 indicates willingness to join.

The percentage of employees willing to join was 50.1%.

Perceived Union Discrimination

To assess perceived union discrimination, we asked employees to respond to six experiential items (see similar items used by Noh et al., 1999; Volpone & Avery, 2013).

The items were prefaced with the statement:

“We are interested in your labor union experience as a non-union employee, having never been a union member or currently not a union member.”

The statement was followed by a response instruction:

“For each question, check (√) one blank.”

And an item stem:

“As a non-union employee, have you ever . . .”

The six items were:

“ . . . been “let go” from a job because you were not a union member?”, “ . . . felt “blocked” from getting a job (not hired) because you were not a union member?”, “ . . . been denied access to job training in a “craft school” run by a union?”, “. . . been denied admission to a job apprentice program run by a union?”, “. . . felt skipped over for a “preferred” work assignment because you were not a union member?”, and “ . . . felt passed over for a promotion because you were not a union member?”

Response options were:

“yes” or “no”

Options were coded as 1 or 0, respectively, where 1 indicates discrimination.

The percentage of “yes” (discrimination) responses by item were as follows: “not hired” (7.5%), “skipped over for assignment” (6.0%), “passed over for promotion” (5.5%), “let go” (5.2%), “denied training” (3.9%), and “denied apprenticeship” (3.6%)

Because the discrimination items represent discrete activities and events, indicators of response agreement or consistency are nonapplicable.

As a result, a dichotomous experience scale was constructed, in which summed responses were either 0 or greater than 0, yielding perceived union discrimination scores as 0 (no discrimination) or 1 (discrimination).

Controls

To control for sample-specific statistical associations between the demographics and the model variables, significant zero-order correlations between the demographics and the variables were used to select covariates (see Table 1; see also Sauer et al., 2013 for an overview of covariate selection). As such, in separate analyses, negative social emotions were regressed onto ethnic group, prior union membership was regressed onto age, and perceived union discrimination were regressed onto ethnic group.

Table 1 Zero-Order Correlations (rs), Means (Ms), and Standard Deviations (SDs)
Full size table

From these analyses, the unstandardized residual scores for negative social emotions, prior union membership, and perceived union discrimination were used in model tests.

Results

Raw score zero-order correlations, means (Ms), and standard deviations (SDs) for all study variables are presented in Table 1.

Descriptive Tests

To discern significant mean differences in demographics in relation to model variables, we performed t-tests. On average, employees 25 years or older (vs. employees less than 25) were more likely to have prior union membership, t(383) = -3.675, ps < 0.01. Also, on average, ethnic employees (vs. non-ethnic employees) were more likely to report negative social emotions, and to report more union discrimination, ts(383) ≤ -2.594, ps < 0.05.

Preliminary Tests

The zero-order correlation between negative social emotions and willingness to join a union was negative and significant, r = -0.17, p < 0.01, and the correlation between negative social emotions and union intolerance was positive and significant, r = 0.19, p < 0.01, results that are consistent with the hypothesized model. Also, the correlation between union intolerance and willingness to join was negative and significant, r = -0.51, p < 0.01, a result also consistent with the model.Footnote 5

Model Tests

To test the hypothesized model, we ran a series of regression-based analyses selected from PROCESS 4.0 written for SPSS by Hayes (2022). In each regression analysis, we used 10,000 bootstrap (Boot) samples to generate Boot 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for direct and indirect effects.Footnote 6

Mediational Analysis (without moderators)

We first tested a model that estimated the direct paths to and from model variables in each instance, the direct effect with union intolerance as outcome (negative social emotions → union intolerance), and the direct effects with willingness to join a union as outcome (negative social emotions → willingness to join a union, union intolerance → willingness to join a union). This analysis also included the hypothesized indirect effect of negative social emotions on willingness to join through union intolerance (negative social emotions → union intolerance → willingness to join a union).Footnote 7

In the analysis, the direct effects were significant (the CIs did not include zero; see Table 2). Also, the hypothesized indirect effect of social negative emotions on willingness to join a union through union intolerance was significant, indirect effect = -0.2230, Boot SE = 0.0781, Boot CI [-0.3919, -0.0859].

Table 2 Regression Results: Mediation Analysis (without Moderators)
Full size table

Moderated Mediation Analysis (with moderators)

We next tested a model that estimated the direct paths in the model in relation to the hypothesized moderators, the negative social emotions to union intolerance path conditional on prior union membership, and the union intolerance to willingness to join a union path conditional on perceived union discrimination. This analysis also included the hypothesized moderated indirect effect of negative social emotions on willingness to join through union intolerance.

In the analysis, with union intolerance as outcome, the direct effect of negative social emotions on union intolerance was significant, but the direct effect of prior union membership on union intolerance was not (the CI for the latter effect included zero; see Table 3). In reference to the former effect, the hypothesized conditional effect of negative social emotions by prior union membership on union intolerance was significant, B = -0.0915, Boot SE = 0.0354, Boot CI [-0.1612, -0.0219].

Table 3 Regression Results: Moderated Mediation Analysis (with Moderators)
Full size table

The conditional (interaction) effect with union membership as moderator is presented in Fig. 2. As shown, when employees have no prior union membership, the effect of negative social emotions on union intolerance is positive and significant, B = 0.0803, Boot SE = 0.0171, Boot CI [0.0447, 0.1139]. In contrast, when employees have prior membership, the effect of negative social emotions on union intolerance is near zero and nonsignificant, B = 0.0058, Boot SE = 0.0213, Boot CI [-0.0361, 0.0477].

Fig. 2
figure 2

Simple slopes for negative social emotions and union intolerance in relation to prior union membership

Full size image

In the analysis, with willingness to join a union as outcome, the direct effects were significant with the exception of the direct effect of perceived union discrimination on willingness to join. In reference to the hypothesized conditional effect, the effect of union intolerance by perceived union discrimination on willingness to join was significant, B = -5.2905, Boot SE = 2.5685, Boot CI [-0.10.3248, -0.2563].

The conditional (interaction) effect with perceived union discrimination as moderator, is presented in Fig. 3. As shown, when employees report discrimination, the effect of union intolerance on willingness to join a union is negative and significant, B = -6.5294, Boot SE = 1.2276, Boot CI [-8.9355, -4.1233]. Also, when employees report no discrimination, the effect of union intolerance on willingness to join is negative and significant, B = -3.6920, Boot SE = 0.5766, Boot CI [-4.8220, -2.5619], keeping in mind that the significant interaction term shown in the analysis for the conditional effect indicates that the negative simple slopes are significantly different from each other.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Simple slopes for union intolerance and willingness to join a union in relation to perceived union discrimination

Full size image

Also, in the analysis, the hypothesized indirect effect of negative social emotions on willingness to join a union through union intolerance with moderators was significant, moderated moderated mediation index = 0.4843, Boot SE = 0.5428, Boot CI [0.0259, 2.1046].Footnote 8

Summary of Model Tests

The results of the model test provide support for the hypothesized mediation. Consistent with the Hypothesis 1, employees who report more negative social emotions indicate less willingness to join a union, but the path from negative social emotions unfolds through union intolerance, such that more negative social emotions are associated with more union intolerance, which in turn is associated with less willingness to join.

Moreover, in relation to the hypothesized mediation, the results of the tests provide support for moderated mediation. Consistent with Hypothesis 2, the relationship between social negative emotions and union intolerance is present for employees who have no prior union membership (more negative emotions are associated with more union intolerance) but is absent for employees who have prior union membership. Also consistent with Hypothesis 2, the relationship between union intolerance and willingness to join a union is present for employees who report union discrimination and for employees who report no union discrimination (more union intolerance is associated with less willingness to join), but the relationship is stronger for employee who report discrimination.

Supplemental Analyses

To strengthen the statistical inference of the hypothesized mediation, we reran the mediation analysis for a reverse-order, nonredundant model, with willingness to join a union as predictor and negative social emotions as mediator (willingness to join a union → negative social emotions → union intolerance).Footnote 9 In this analysis, the non-hypothesized indirect effect was nonsignificant, indirect effect = -0.0115, the CI included zero.

Also, to strengthen the statistical inference of the hypothesized conditional relationships, we reran the moderation mediation analysis with the moderators switched, the path from negative social emotions to union intolerance conditional on perceived union discrimination, and in the same analysis, the path from union intolerance to willingness to join a union conditional on prior union membership. In this analysis, the non-hypothesized indirect effect with moderators was nonsignificant, moderated moderated mediation index = 0.1479, the CI included zero.

Discussion

What Then?

The aim of our study was to add to the picture of answers for the gap between how employees feel about unions and how they act in accordance with a union. In contrast to noted—and notable—external factors, we sought to fill in the picture by bringing attention to internal processes. Specifically, we found support for a hypothesized model in which negative social emotions relate to willingness to join a union, a relationship that unfolds through union intolerance. Drawing insight from psychodynamics in reference to projection as a defense mechanism in which unacceptable emotions are projected onto groups of others, we also sought to demonstrate that negative social emotions and union intolerance are linked by projection. Representing the logic of projection, in which projection is more likely under conditions of limited rather than extended exposure to the group in question, we found support for the model that the relationship between negative social emotions and union intolerance is stronger for nonunion employees who have no prior union membership in contrast to nonunion employees who do. Wishing also to ground our model in the experience of nonunion employees with unions, we sought to demonstrate that perceived union discrimination strengthens the link between union intolerance and willingness to join, in which we found support for the model that the relationship between union intolerance and willingness to join is stronger for nonunion employees who report discrimination as opposed to nonunion employees who do not.

What’s New?

Our study bears on the much ballyhooed disconnect found in prior studies that focus on relationships between emotions and action, in which emotions as predictors sometimes show weak connections to action (see Ekman, 1992; Elster, 1999; LeDoux, 2019; Royzman et al., 2005 for debates and discussions). Despite what appears to be a disconnect in the case of feelings about unions and action directed at a union, the disconnect is only apparent. Found in relation to the experience of nonunion employees is an underlying process that connects emotions suggested as related to unions via projection to action in the form of willingness to join a union. We think our model results provide a demonstration of the specificity hypothesis, a research heuristic often expressed in terms of appropriate lens size (see Lazarus, 1991; Lazarus & Lazarus, 1994 for background and relevant examples). Suggested is that when a broad lens is used to record a general emotion and a specific lens is used to record a proposed emotion-related action, the connection (if any) between the two is ill-focused, resulting in a possible missed connection or one that appears weak (i.e., fuzzy). Better, as shown in our study, are appropriate same size lens used for model variables, in which also brought into focus are proposed connective elements. As demonstrated in our study—and we expect can be shown in other studies with appropriate lens selection—feelings about unions and willingness to join are connected, and connective elements are stronger in relation to the exposure and experience of nonunion employees in relation to unions.

In anticipation of a question about why we featured negative social emotions in reference to union joining rather than positive social emotions, we have an answer and a point to underline, a point that we think is wed to the importance of context. In an effort to conduct relevant research in regard to the gap question with a focus on internal processes that underlie the experience of nonunion employees in reference to joining, we think the experience in question is embedded within a larger context with cultural elements in play. Specifically, with the advent of social media, accessible websites, and blogging, expressions of union hatred have intensified. As a result, our initial study thoughts could not be directed away from the prospect that expressed hatred has stimulated links between negative social emotions and union joining. That is, in contrast to older studies on union joining that have bypassed cultural elements and favored positive social emotions as predictors of joining (e.g., belief in unionism, general prounion attitudes), we used negative social emotions proposed as projected onto unions to predict willingness to join in step with and linked to active cultural elements. This attention to context may be suggested as one reason for the amount of covariation seen in our study between union intolerance and willingness to join, covariation that is nearly twice the amount seen in studies with positive social emotions as predictors (see Godard, 2008; Godard & Frege, 2013 for reviews of so-called prounion studies).

What’s Next?

The bloodline of research is research that begets research, and in this vein, we encourage other researchers to conduct further studies that extend and expand our five-variable model, and by doing so, address notable limitations of our study. We think our model can be extended by studies that focus on demographic characteristics of nonunion employees as seen in our correlation matrix with respect to the age of nonunion employees, and in our covariate analysis with respect to younger versus older nonunion employees and with respect to nonethnic versus ethnic nonunion employees. Also, the noted positive coefficient between negative social emotions and perceived union discrimination as seen in our data (see Footnote 5) represents an unexplored link in our model and suggests the prospect of an unspecified variable, perhaps another mediated path through union intolerance. Also, exempt from our model are external factors and cognitive elements. As indicated in our discussion, the contextual interplay of external factors and internal processes is assumed, and we encourage researchers to form and test plausible cross-level interactive relationships that may link to union joining. As for the interplay of cognition, we think the inclusion of such elements in our model can help clarify how employees make sense of negative social emotions associated with joining, in which emotive-cognitive variables may be introduced to suggest links to joining (see Premack & Hunter, 1988 for a path-model example).

In reference to expansion studies directed at generalization of our model results to nonsampled nonunion employees, the measures and response instructions used in our study are available online (Mellor, 2022c). Although encouraged, expansion studies aimed at generalization of results to non-American nonunion employees would require square-one inductive work directed at the union intolerance measure (note the response instructions to employees indicated in the Method section) followed by pilot testing and content validity studies. As indicated in the construction studies for the intolerance measure (Mellor, 2022b, 2023), to determine which unacceptable emotions were perceived by American nonunion employees as encouraged by unions, online search engines were used to gather verbatim website and blog statements that indicated intolerance of (sustained hatred directed at) unions. Using inductive item construction methods, a representative subset of these statements with intact words and phrases were selected as items of the measure. Modeling these steps in the construction of a union intolerance measure for non-American nonunion employees would mark a beginning effort to test the generalization of our model results in reference to sampled non-American nonunion employees, and if undertaken, could show by example how cross-cultural studies directed at union joining may be constructed and connected.

What Now?

At inception and throughout the development of our model, we cast a focused eye on application. Our essential and steady application question was how the model results might be used to inform unions in regard to union joining? For union practitioners who are charged with the task of recruiting new members, herewith are our suggestions based on the model results keyed to the moderated relationships.

First, in relation to prior union membership, with projection proposed as a linking mechanism for the relationship between negative social emotions and union intolerance, to be noted is that the relationship is exclusive to nonunion employees who have no prior membership, meaning that first-hand experience with unions and exposure to union employees may be assumed as limited, perhaps even absent. With projection noted as more likely under conditions of limited exposure to the others who become targets of projection, we envision a program of opportunities for nonunion employees to gain exposure to union employees. This can be enacted through informal social gatherings sponsored by unions in which nonunion employees are specifically invited to attend. We are aware of limited resources and time, and the need to prioritize both in the service of members, but with on-board members expending the effort, it may be possible through such gathering to facilitate a work environment esprit de corps, in which “the union” is experienced less as an “exclusive club” reserved for members and more as a permeable body of “we employees” who share basic responsibilities and rights (a vision of unionized work discussed by many labor scholars, see for example Ezorsky, 2007; Kochan, 2005). Noting how model variables in our study unfold in relation to willingness to join a union, undermining the projection of negative social emotions onto unions through sponsored interactive opportunities with union employees would predictably diminish less willingness to join.Footnote 10

Next, in relation to perceived union discrimination, in which the relationship between union intolerance and willingness to join is more negative for nonunion employees who report discrimination, it seems plausible to suggest that the relationship can be attenuated by programmatic efforts by unions to provide nonunion employees with anticipatory information about work-related events or outcomes that may be experienced as exclusionary. Explaining to nonunion employees the contractual basis on which they may be excluded before exclusion takes place may help nonunion employees prepare and perhaps plan for alternatives that may not only remove part of the understandable sting of exclusion but may also act as means to illustrate how such exclusion benefits those who have banded together for common cause (shared concerns and issues) as opposed to those who have embraced the vulnerability of going it alone. In effect, developing programs of information directed at nonunion employees that explain what befits union membership can bring added attention to how unions as organizations strive to maintain the collectivistic ideal of attending to the interest and will of those who have caucused together (a tenet of unionism raised by many labor scholars, see for example Greenhouse, 2019; McAlevey, 2020). Again, we are aware of scarce resources and priority in favor of union employees, but when one takes in model variable relationships shown in our study, and in particular the heightened negative intolerance-willingness to join relationship shown by nonunion employees who report discrimination, a pre-explanatory information program directed at such employees in anticipation of perceived discrimination may be regarded as a small cost against the prospect of a near total loss of a subpopulation of less recruitable employees.

Conclusion

Offered is a model of internal processes that bears on the apparent gap between union sentiment and union joining expressed in this case as a disconnect between how employees feel about unions and how they might act in accordance with a union. Using insight drawn from the psychodynamic literature on projection as a defense mechanism, we interpreted model support as a demonstration that negative social emotions projected onto unions relate to union intolerance, and in turn, that intolerance relates to willingness to join a union. Also, extracted from model results, we suggested applications to facilitate efforts to expand union memberships in reference to undermining projection and de-intensifying intolerance linked to willingness to join.