Opinion-Based Group Membership as a Predictor of Collective Emotional Responses and Support for Pro- and Anti-War Action

Abstract

Abstract. Social identity theory, intergroup emotions theory (IET), and related approaches offer the potential to understand the social psychological aspects of collective behavior such as movements that protest against or argue for war. Social identification, however, tends to be a weak predictor of collective action intentions. We argue that in order to understand the fault lines of collective action it is useful to consider identification with opinion-based groups. We illustrate this in relation to support for and opposition to the war on terror (WoT) in Australia. Comparing predictions based on IET with those based on opinion-based group identification, we found limited support for the sets of connections hypothesized by IET. Alternatively, social identification with pro- and anti-WoT opinion-based groups was a strong predictor of different emotional reactions and associated action intentions. In particular, highly identified supporters of the WoT were angry at terrorists, and this anger in turn predicted offensive action tendencies against the terrorists. Stronger yet were the emotional reactions of anger at the government reported by highly identified opponents of the WoT, which strongly predicted anti-war protest action intentions. The results point to the utility of the opinion-based group concept for understanding the collective, yet contested, aspects of political support for war and peace in contemporary society.

Aspirations for a cooperative community and support for mental health advocacy: a shared orientation through opinion‐based group membership

“…In the present paper, we offered an approach to addressing the stigma of mental disorders that explores the psychological constructs of a group based on a particular opinion (i.e., support for mental health advocacy), rather than other suggested alternatives, such as one based on a superordinate identity (for further work, see Gee & McGarty, ). In doing so, our findings add evidence from a new domain to previous research demonstrating that opinion‐based group membership predicts sociopolitical action (e.g., Bliuc et al., ; Cameron & Nickerson, ; Musgrove & McGarty, ; O'Brien & McGarty, ; Thomas & McGarty, ), but our findings also explore membership of a psychological group that crosses the boundaries imposed by existing social categories. Although defining groups along social categorical lines is important for a cooperative community (indeed, we have been referring to these social categories throughout this paper), it does not explain why people who have not personally experienced stigma and discrimination may come to see themselves as having common cause with those who have.…”

Learning behaviour and learning outcomes: the roles for social influence and field of study

“…Conscientiousness has a robust relation to both learning approaches and academic outcomes (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2004, 2008O'Connor & Paunonen, 2007) and there is some evidence that extraversion predicts deeper learning approaches (McManus, Keeling, & Paice, 2004). Conscientiousness and extraversion were measured using 12 items each, from the widely used Big-Five inventory RUNNING HEAD: LEARNING BEHAVIOUR AND OUTCOMES: THE ROLE FOR SOCIAL INFLUENCE 14 (John et al, 2008; e.g., "I often forget to put things back in their proper place.…”

“…McGarty, Reynolds, & Muntele, 2006;McGarty, Bliuc, Thomas, & Bongiorno, 2009;Musgrove & McGarty, 2008;Postmes, Haslam, & Swaab, 2005;Postmes, Spears, Sakhel, & deGroot, 2001;Thomas, McGarty, & Mavor, 2009a, 2009bTurner, 1991;White, Smith, Terry, Greenslade, & McKimmie, 2009). With the inclusion of social identification and norms in our understanding of the learning process, we can then draw on this social influence literature to improve the effectiveness of the ways in which we attempt to shape student approaches to learning and educational outcomes.…”

Collective Identity in the anglophone Social Psychology

“…Some social psychologists from the Australian University of Canberra (Australia) argued that to predict collective intergroup action we should study identification with groups that are already positioned and have opinions and emotional reactions. Therefore, they http://dx.doi.org/10.1387/pceic.14704 -7-posited that it is necessary to combine SIT with IET (Musgrove and McGarty, 2008).…”