Dynamic, Yet Stable: Separating Within- and Between-Person Components of Collective Action in Support of a Disadvantaged Outgroup and its Antecedents

Abstract

Despite an increasing interest in the drivers of intergroup solidarity, the within-person longitudinal relationships between advantaged group members’ engagement for disadvantaged groups and its postulated antecedents remain scarcely tested. In the context of the refugee crisis following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, we conducted a three-wave longitudinal survey ( NT1 = 804, NT2 = 702, and NT3 = 624) assessing Poles’ (the advantaged group) willingness to act for Ukrainians (the disadvantaged group), together with three hypothesized predictors—moral convictions, intergroup contact, and politicized identity. Employing a random intercept cross-lagged panel model that separates between- from within-person variance, we found that within-person changes in moral convictions and friendship contact directly predicted subsequent action intentions. Contrary to past theorizing, politicized identity emerged as consequence rather than an antecedent of collective action. Superficial intergroup contact indirectly predicted engagement intentions by facilitating cross-group friendship. We discuss the implications of our findings for current models of collective action.

Replicating and extending Sengupta et al. (2023): Contact predicts no within-person longitudinal outgroup-bias change.

“…C. Turner & Reynolds, 2003). In some ways, our results, along with other recent findings (Barlow et al, 2019; Bohrer et al, 2019; Friehs et al, 2023; Górska & Tausch, 2022; Sengupta et al, 2023), highlight the risks of ignoring or downplaying the role of the person (vs. situation) in contact settings.…”

“…It would also be valuable to compare contact during COVID-19 (or other pandemics) with contact during less restricted time periods. Although our data, collected during a pandemic, align with findings from nonpandemic periods (Bohrer et al, 2019;Friehs et al, 2023;Go ´rska & Tausch, 2022;Sengupta et al, 2023), such comparisons warrant further exploration.…”

“…Some social psychologists even argue that a focus on individual differences such as SDO paints far too "bleak" a picture for theorists to take on the problem of prejudice (J. C. Turner & Reynolds, 2003). In some ways, our results, along with other recent findings (Barlow et al, 2019;Bohrer et al, 2019;Friehs et al, 2023;Go ´rska & Tausch, 2022;Sengupta et al, 2023), highlight the risks of ignoring or downplaying the role of the person (vs. situation) in contact settings.…”

The Between-Person and Within-Person Effects of Intergroup Contact on Outgroup Attitudes: A Multi-Context Examination

“…Within-person effects may occur over longer timeframes (e.g., if attitudes show high between-person stability over time, withinperson changes might occur after a considerable amount of intergroup contact, such as a year's experiences) or shorter timeframes (e.g., if within-person changes in attitudes are short-term and volatile). Future research employing study designs that can capture short-term effects (e.g., between daily and a few weeks; see Go´rska & Tausch, 2022) and long-term effects (e.g., annual assessments over many years; see Sengupta et al, 2023) is required to identify the timeframe over which contact may lead to within-person change in attitudes.…”

Who is willing to help Ukrainian refugees and why? The role of individual prosocial dispositions and superordinate European identity

“…Furthermore, the studies were presented as an investigation of civil society involvement in refugee reception, perhaps inducing participants to think about this specific issue when answering questions on general prosocial dispositions and self-categorization dynamics. To tackle these limits, longitudinal designs would more successfully tease apart general processes from reactions to specific target groups and capture dynamic fluctuations in public opinion (G orska & Tausch, 2022).…”