Anger, identity or efficacy belief? Dynamics of motivation and participation in 2020 Belarusian protests
HSE University, Moscow, Russia, email@example.com
elibrary_id: 124097 | ORCID: 0000-0001-8002-7307 | RESEARCHER_ID: L-3000-2015
Keldysh Institute for Applied Mathematics of Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia, firstname.lastname@example.org
elibrary_id: 15671 | ORCID: 0000-0001-5244-8286 | RESEARCHER_ID: R-6729-2016
Article received: 2022.08.26. Accepted: 2023.01.11
This research is supported by the Russian Science Foundation under grant no. 20-18-00274, HSE University.
In this paper, we present our estimates of the motivational and participative dynamics in the protest against the announced results of the presidential elections in the Republic of Belarus in 2020. The campaign is analyzed throughout the whole period of its active development: from August to December. Based on contemporary achievements in the social psychology of protest movements, we have developed an original method for analyzing messages in social media. It involves linking the most popular (mostly reposted) posts to three key motives (antecedents) of protest participation: anger, identification with the protest movement, and belief in its efficacy. This was done by means of a formalized coding procedure, which involved 12 encoders working independently. The resulting time series, reflecting the salience of the motives in question, were compared with the timeline of street protest activity. To measure the latter, we also offer a novel method for calculating the turnout index, or T-index. The time unit for both motivation and street protests was one week; a total of 18 weeks were analyzed. The key takeaway of the study is that the dynamics of efficacy belief is the most closely related to the dynamics of street activity. For both processes, there is a significant increase in the very first weeks of the protest campaign, followed by a gradual weakening. The antecedent “anger” remains generally at a constant level, while the antecedent “protest identity” has a rather positive or n-shaped dynamics.
Akhremenko, A., & Petrov, A. (2020). Modeling the protest-repression nexus. Proceedings of the MACSPro Workshop 2020. Venice, Italy, October 22-24. CEUR Workshop Proceedings. P. 1-11.
Ayanian, A.H., Tausch, N., Acar, Y.G., Chayinska, M., Cheung, W.-Y., & Lukyanova, Y. (2021). Resistance in repressive contexts: a comprehensive test of psychological predictors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120(4), 912-939. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000285
Ayanian, A.H., & Tausch, N. (2016). How risk perception shapes collective action intentions in repressive contexts: a study of Egyptian activists during the 2013 post‐coup uprising. British Journal of Social Psychology, 55(4), 700-721. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12164
Brodersen, K.H., Gallusser, F., Koehler, J., Remy, N., & Scott, S.L. (2015). inferring causal impact using Bayesian structural time-series models. The Annals of Applied Statistics, 9(1), 247-274. https://doi.org/10.1214/14-AOAS788
Cichocka, A., Górska, P., Jost, J.T., Sutton, R.M., & Bilewicz, M. (2018). What inverted U can do for your country: a curvilinear relationship between confidence in the social system and political engagement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 11(5), 883-902. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000168
Corcoran, K.E., Pettinicchio, D., & Young, J. (2011). The context of control: a cross-national investigation of the link between political institutions, efficacy, and collective action. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50(4), 575-605. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02076.x
Drury, J., & Reicher, S.D. (2005). Explaining enduring empowerment: a comparative study of collective action and psychological outcomes. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35(1), 35-38. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.231
Gurr, T. (1970). Why men rebel? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Hornsey, M., Blackwood, L., Louis, W., Fielding, K., Mavor, K., Morton, T., O'Brien, A., Paasonen, K.-.A., Smith, J., & White, K.M. (2006). Why do people engage in collective action? Revisiting the role of perceived effectiveness. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(7), 1701-1722.
Huddy, L. (2003). Group identity and political cohesion. In D.O Sears, L. Huddy, & R. Jervis (Ed.), Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology (pp. 511-546). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Johnson, B., Neo, R., Heijnen, M., Smits, L., & van Veen, C. (2020). Issues, involvement, and influence: effects of selective exposure and sharing on polarization and participation. Computers in Human Behavior, 104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.09.031
Klandermans, B. (1984). Mobilization and participation: social-psychological expansions of resource mobilization theory. American Sociological Review, 49(5), 583-600. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095417
Klandermans, B. (1997). The social psychology of protest. Oxford: Blackwell.
McAdam, D. (1986). Recruitment to high-risk activism: the case of freedom summer. American Journal of Sociology, 92(1), 64-90.
Miller, D.A., Cronin, T., Garcia, A.L., Branscombe, N.R. (2009). Feelings of fear affect the relative impact of anger and efficacy on collective action. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 12(4), 445-462. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430209105046
Mummendey, A., Kessler, T., Klink, A., & Mielke, R. (1999). Strategies to cope with negative social identity: predictions by social identity theory and relative deprivation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(2), 229-245. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-35188.8.131.52
Osborne, D., Jost, J. T., Becker, J.C., Badaan, V., & Sibley, C.G. (2019). Protesting to challenge or defend the system? A system justification perspective on collective action. European Journal of Social Psychology, 49(2), 244-269. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2522
Saab, R., Tausch, N., Spears, R. & Cheung, W. (2015). Acting in solidarity: testing an extended dual pathway model of collective action by third parties. British Journal of Social Psychology, 54(3), 539-560. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12095
Schaefer, R. (2008). Racial and ethnic groups. 11-th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Sturmer, S., & Simon, B. (2004). Collective action: towards a dual pathway model. European Review of Social Psychology, 15(1), 59-99. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280340000117
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J.C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W.G. Austin, & S. Worchel (Ed.), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp. 33-47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Thomas, E.F., Mavor, K.I., & McGarty, C. (2012). Social identities facilitate and encapsulate action-relevant constructs: a test of the social identity model of collective action. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 15(1), 75-88. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430211413619
Tilly, Ch. (1978). From mobilization to revolution. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Turner, J.C. (1985). Social categorization and the self-concept: a social cognitive theory of group behavior. In E.J. Lawler (Ed.), Advances in Group Processes (pp. 77-122). Greenwich: JAI Press.
Van Stekelenburg, J., & Klandermans, B. (2007). Individuals in movements: a social psychology of contention. In C.M. Roggeband, & B. Klandermans (Ed.), The Handbook of Social Movements across Disciplines (pp. 157-204). New York, NY: Springer..
Van Zomeren, M., Spears, R., Fischer, A.H., & Leach, C.W. (2004). Put your money where your mouth is! Explaining collective action tendencies through group based anger and group efficacy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(5), 649-664. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-35184.108.40.2069
Van Zomeren, M., Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2008). Toward an integrative social identity model of collective action: a quantitative research synthesis of three socio-psychological perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 134(4), 504-535. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.504
Van Zomeren, M., Saguy, T., & Schellhaas, F.M.H. (2013). Believing in “making a difference” to collective efforts: participative efficacy beliefs as a unique predictor of collective action. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 16(5), 618-634. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430212467476
Walker, I., & Smith, H.J. (2002). Relative deprivation: specification, development, and integration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Akhremenko, A.S., Belenkov, V.E., & Petrov, A.P. (2021). The logic of protest campaigns: from empirical data to dynamic models (and back). Polis. Political Studies, 3, 147-165. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2021.03.10
Social protest within the politics field. Potential, repertoire, discourse (experience of theoretical interpretation and of empirical verification). – Polis. Political Studies. 2011. No4
Akhremenko A.S., Stukal D.K., Petrov A.P.,
Network vs Message in Protest Diffusion on Social Media: Theoretical and Data Analytics Perspectives. – Polis. Political Studies. 2020. No2
Ryabchenko N.A., Malysheva O.P., Gnedash A.A.,
Presidential Campaign in Post-Truth Era: Innovative Digital Technologies of Political Content Management in Social Networks Politics. – Polis. Political Studies. 2019. No2
Akhremenko A.S., Belenkov V.E., Petrov A.P.,
The Logic of Protest Campaigns: From Empirical Data to Dynamic Models (and Back). – Polis. Political Studies. 2021. No3
Timofeyeva L.N., Ryabchenko N.A., Malysheva O.P., Gnedash A.A.,
The digital socio-political agenda and its conceptualization within the new media ecology framework. – Polis. Political Studies. 2022. No2