No abstract

were conducted to tease apart the relative effects of descriptive and injunctive group norms. In both studies, university students' attitudes towards current campus issues were obtained, descriptive and injunctive group norms were manipulated, and participants' postmanipulation attitudes, behavioural willingness, and behaviour were assessed. Study 2 also examined the role of norm source (i.e., ingroup vs. outgroup injunctive and descriptive norms). In both studies, injunctive and descriptive ingroup norms interacted significantly to influence attitudes, behavioural willingness, and behaviour. Study 2 revealed that outgroup norms were largely ineffective. The research illustrates that ingroups interactively influence decisions, not only by what they say, but also by what they do, and asserts the value of considering the interaction of descriptive and injunctive norms in accounts of normative influence.

Research has shown limited support for the notion that perceived effectiveness of collective action is a predictor of intentions to engage in collective action. One reason may be that effectiveness has been in terms of whether the action will influence key decision makers. We argue that the effectiveness of collective action might be judged by other criteria, such as whether it influences third parties, builds an oppositional movement, and expresses values. Two hundred and thirty one attendees at a rally rated the effectiveness of the rally and their intentions to engage in future collective action. For those participants who were not members of an organization, intentions were linked to the perceived effectiveness of the rally in expressing values and influencing the public. For those who were members of an organization, intentions were linked only to the effectiveness of the rally in building an oppositional movement.It is well documented that people's concerns about social and economic issues do not necessarily translate into collective action (Klandermans, 2002;Olson, 1968). For example, a 1983 Gallup poll (cited in Fox & Schofield, 1989 revealed that approximately 40% of people in the U.S. believed that it was likely that there would be nuclear war by 1998, and 70% believed that they would not survive a nuclear war. Despite this, surveys in the 1980s showed that only a very small minority of people engaged in collective

Two aspects of the social psychology of collective action are of particular interest to social movement organizers and activists: how to motivate people to engage in collective action, and how to use collective action to create social change. The second question remains almost untouched within social psychology. The present article delineates research from political science and sociology concerning variables that moderate the effectiveness of collective action and maps these variables against intergroup research. Within intergroup social psychology, there is a theoretical literature on what needs to be done to achieve change (e.g., changing identification, social norms, or perceptions of legitimacy, stability, permeability). The article considers possible testable hypotheses concerning the outcomes of collective action which can be derived from intergroup research and from the synthesis of the three disciplines. For theoreticians and practitioners alike, a program of research which addresses the social-psychological outcomes of collective action and links these to identities, norms, intentions, and support for social change in bystanders, protagonists, and opponents has a great deal of interest.Two aspects of the social psychology of collective action are of particular interest to social movement organizers and activists: how to motivate people to engage in collective action, and how to use collective action to create social change. 1 The first has received a great deal of research attention. Empirical data suggest that people can be motivated to engage in collective action by individual instrumental

No abstract