Responding to membership in a disadvantaged group : from acceptance to collective protest

TLDR: The question addressed in this paper is, when do disadvantaged-group members accept their situation, take individual action, or attempt to instigate collective action? Ss attempted to move from a low-status group into an advantaged, high status group and were asked to respond to their subsequent rejeche tion.

Abstract: The question addressed is, when do disadvantaged-group members accept their situation, take individual action, or attempt to instigate collective action? Ss attempted to move from a low-status group into an advantaged, high-status group and were asked to respond to their subsequent rejec­ tion. Ss who believed that the high-status group was open to members of their group endorsed acceptance and individual actions. When access to the high-status group was restricted, even to the point of being almost closed (tokenism), Ss still preferred individual action. Disruptive forms of collective action were only favored by Ss who were told that the high-status group was completely closed to members oftheirgroup. Ss who believed they were near togainingentry into the high-sta­ tus group favored individual protest, while Ss distant from entry were more likely to accept their position. The theoretical and societal implications ofthese findings are discussed.

Figures

Figure 2: Mean rating of endorsement of each of flve behavloural responses by subjects close to and fer from entry into the advantaged group ,

Table 2 pres~nts the number of subjects in each'of the

Table 2 pres~nts the number of subjects in each'of the

Figure 1: Mean ra~Jng of endorsemeot of the flve behavioural responses~ subjects af four levels of group openness

Table 4 Hean Rating ~ the Nine Perceptions and Emotional Response Heasures for Subjects in AlI Experimental Co~ditions • ,

Figure 3: Frequency of selection of each of five behavloural responses by .8~bject8 ln four levels of group opeilness