Search

Identity, injustice and group efficacy are key motivations for collective action engagement. However, little work has examined factors that influence their emergence. Across three studies (total N = 938), we test whether exposure to different actions (i.e., radical or conventional) and the perceived legitimacy and efficacy of those actions ('the means') predict observers' sense of injustice, identity, group efficacy about the issue, and in turn, future action engagement ('the ends'). As expected, radical (versus conventional) actions were perceived as less legitimate and effective. These evaluations indirectly predicted lower action via diminished identification and injustice, respectively. Paradoxically, legitimacy and efficacy evaluations also indirectly predicted higher radical and conventional action via diminished group efficacy. Thus, collective action is shaped by and reciprocally influences injustice, identity, and group efficacy. Simultaneous exposure to conventional and radical actions also offset these effects, indicating that conventional actions can mitigate the indirect effects of radical tactics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The nature of our relationships with nonhuman animals is complex and varies greatly across different types and species of animals. The goal of the current research is to investigate the differences that exist in our perceptions of animals based on their type, specifically by focusing on the phenomenon of compartmentalization. Two studies investigated the compartmentalization of farm animals relative to other types of animals (e.g., pets, wild animals). In Study 1, a greater tendency to compartmentalize farm animals correlated negatively with the attribution of a higher status to these animals, with more differentiated perceptions between the standing of farm animals and pets, and with a lower inclusion of animals in the self. In Study 2, different justifying beliefs taping into human superiority, the endorsement of carnism, and feeling threatened by vegetarianism mediated the negative relation between compartmentalization of farm animals and the negative emotional outcomes felt when eating meat. Together, these findings confirm the relevance of applying the notion of compartmentalization to the specific realm of human–animal relations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]