From October 2016 until October 2018, we conducted 16 experiments in four different countries (Portugal, Belgium, UK and USA). Participants were members of advantaged groups to whom we asked opinions about collective protest. The intergroup contexts varied from gender, to ethnic, to student program-related prestige and host societies vs. refugees. The type of protest (normative vs. non-normative) and its goals (resources vs. recognition of identity) were also systematically varied. This work resulted in the writing of four empirical papers and was presented in eight international conferences. In addition, it led to a research stay at Columbia University and the securing of two years of additional funding for the fellow to pursue research on this topic.
The debates and discussions with experts around this work led to the refinement of theory and methodology and the end result is a comprehensive multi-level model examining reactions to collective protest. This approach entails the simultaneous consideration of individual, context, system and ideological aspects when examining advantaged group members reactions to protest. In the case of this project we examined ingroup identification, type and goal of protest, stability of the system and diversity ideologies, respectively. However, this framework can easily be adapted to other variables such as permeability of the intergroup context or meritocratic ideologies.
This approach started to be incorporated in Master level classes on advanced topics in intergroup relations as a tool for an evidence-based analysis of societal unrest. Importantly, this approach is easily generalizable to other audiences’ reactions to protest and to advantaged groups’ support for inequality in general (i.e. beyond the context of protest; for example, in predicting political behavior). Given the interest of experts and the level of impact of the journal to which some these papers were (re)submitted, it is expected that the impact of the project in the international research community will soon be very visible and will allow us to have a solid and reliable base to continue the dissemination of results.
The important message from our results is that in order to understand the dynamics of societal change, and predict the development of social unrest, and to devise interventions for inequality reduction, it is crucial to consider how aspects linked to who perceives, what, in which larger (socio-economic and political) context. Failure to consider these aspects simultaneously can lead to misinterpretations and, consequently, to failures to develop effective interventions. A clear example of these phenomena is the opposite reactions to social unrest that we found among members who are highly vs. lowly committed to the identity of the advantaged group. Whereas threats to image and privilege strongly dictate support for inequality reduction among highly committed members, lowly committed members’ reactions are more strongly linked to empathy-based mechanisms implying taking the perspective of the disadvantaged. As a result, these two types of members react in opposite manners to the exact same situation.