The study comprises an analysis of processes of psychological change among participants at an environmental protest. A participant observation study found evidence of a radicalized self concept among a number of crowd members, and indicates a link between radicalization, an asymmetry of categorical representations between protesters and the police, and the subsequent interaction premised on these divergent representations. The analysis supports an elaborated social identity model of crowd behaviour (Reicher, 1996, 1997a, 1997b; Stott & Reicher, 1998). It is argued that, in order to account for both social determination and social change in collective behaviour, it is necessary to analyse crowd events as developing interactions between groups. Where crowd members hold a different understanding of their social position to that held by an out-group (e.g. the police) and where the out-group has the power to treat crowd members in terms of its understandings, then those members who act on the basis of one understanding of their social relations find themselves in an unexpected and novel set of social relations. This then provides the basis for a series of changes, including the self-understanding of crowd members.

An ethnographic study of two crowd events was carried out in order to develop a hypothesis about the experience of empowerment in collective action. Qualitative comparison of an anti-roads occupation and a mass eviction suggests that empowerment as an outcome of collective action is a function of the extent to which one's own action is understood as expressing social identity, a process we term collective self-objectification. The comparison indicates that empowerment is not reducible to the experience of success. While both events came to be construed by participants as 'victories', their associated emotions (joy versus despair and anger) and rationales for future participation (confidence versus enhanced self-legitimacy) were different. The relation between collective self-objectification and self-efficacy is discussed. Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.'Empowerment' might be defined as a social-psychological state of confidence in one's ability to challenge existing relations of domination. A number of political, anecdotal, historical, autobiographical and journalistic as well as social-scientific accounts have shown that collective action may engender experiences of empowerment, both for the individual participant and for the collective as a whole, typically accompanied by positive affect (e.g. Barker, 1999; Benford & Hunt, 1995, p. 90; Gallacher, 1936, pp. 43, 199; Gregoire & Perlman, 1969, p. 37; Harford & Hopkins, 1984, pp. 92-93; Kelly & Breinlinger, 1996, p. 122; McAdam, 1982, pp. 48-51; Pelton, 1974, p. 134; Piven & Cloward, 1977, pp. 3-4).If the feeling of empowerment endures beyond the collective action itself, it could affect participants' personal lives and motivate involvement in further collective action. The obvious significance of this is in terms of social change. To the extent that people feel increasingly able to participate in collective actions such as protests, demonstrations and other social movement events, then society may change as a result.

No abstract

For most of the history of prejudice research, negativity has been treated as its emotional and cognitive signature, a conception that continues to dominate work on the topic. By this definition, prejudice occurs when we dislike or derogate members of other groups. Recent research, however, has highlighted the need for a more nuanced and 'inclusive' (Eagly 2004) perspective on the role of intergroup emotions and beliefs in sustaining discrimination. On the one hand, several independent lines of research have shown that unequal intergroup relations are often marked by attitudinal complexity, with positive responses such as affection and admiration mingling with negative responses such as contempt and resentment. Simple antipathy is the exception rather than the rule. On the other hand, there is mounting evidence that nurturing bonds of affection between the advantaged and the disadvantaged sometimes entrenches rather than disrupts wider patterns of discrimination. Notably, prejudice reduction interventions may have ironic effects on the political attitudes of the historically disadvantaged, decreasing their perceptions of injustice and willingness to engage in collective action to transform social inequalities. These developments raise a number of important questions. Has the time come to challenge the assumption that negative evaluations are inevitably the cognitive and affective hallmarks of discrimination? Is the orthodox concept of prejudice in danger of side-tracking, if not obstructing, progress towards social justice in a fuller sense? What are the prospects for reconciling a prejudice reduction model of change, designed to get people to like one another more, with a collective action model of change, designed to ignite struggles to achieve intergroup equality?Keywords: Prejudice; intergroup relations; social change 2 Over the course of the past century, the concept of prejudice has become increasingly central to scientific thinking about relations between groups, marking a profound moral and political as well as conceptual shift.During late 19 th and early 20 th centuries, many scholars favoured conceptual frameworks based around notions of group differences, hierarchy and biological inheritance (e.g. see Haller 1971;Goldberg 1993). By rooting the causes of ethnic and racial hostility in the supposed characteristics of its targets, they upheld the traditional doctrine of the 'well-deserved reputation' (Zadwadzki 1948). Between the 1920s and 1940s, however, an 'abrupt reversal' (Samelson, 1978 occurred in scientific thinking. Rather than the inherited deficiencies of minorities, social disharmony was attributed increasingly to the bigotry of majority group members 1 . In the years following the end the Second World War, the concept of prejudice became central to the explanation of a range of social problems, including problems of discrimination, inequality, ideological extremism, and genocide. By the 1950s, prejudice research had "… spread like a flood both in social psychology and in adjacent ...

The issue of psychological empowerment in crowd events has important implications for both theory and practice. Theoretically, the issue throws light on both intergroup conflict and the nature and functions of social identity. Practically, empowerment in collective events can feed into societal change. The study of empowerment therefore tells us something about how the forces pressing for such change might succeed or fail. The present article first outlines some limitations in the conceptualization of both identity and empowerment in previous research on crowd events, before delineating the elaborated social identity model of crowds and power. We then describe recent empirical contributions to the field. These divide into two areas of research: (1) empowerment variables and (2) the dynamics of such empowerment. We finally suggest how psychological empowerment and social change are connected through crowd action. We conclude with some recommendations for practice following from the research described.