In a series of three experimental studies conducted in Israel and the US, involving samples of over 2000 Jewish Israelis and 1000 White Americans, our research sought to explore the impact of ally inclusion in collective action on the advantaged group. The two studies conducted in Israel featured Arab-Jewish movements advocating for equality in housing and land ownership. The third study conducted in the US featured a racial justice movement involving White allies, advocating for reparations to address historical injustice. Our findings revealed that the mere inclusion of allies in collective action did not lead to increased support for policy changes towards equality among advantaged group members when compared to collective action that involved no allies. Instead, the studies found that support for policy change is largely influenced by individuals' ideology, both in Israel and the US. Moreover, our findings demonstrated that joint action can be effective in mobilizing only those whose ideology align with the cause of the movement. These findings seem to reflect the polarized nature of these societies, indicating that ideological considerations can significantly impact the effectiveness of social movements.
To gain insights into overcoming ideological barriers that hinder support for joint action, we are in the process of developing and examining potential persuasive messages aimed at encouraging advantaged group members to support joint social movements in Israel.
Another set of studies investigated whether the involvement of allies in collective action shapes the public’s reaction to police repression of protests in the US. The first study considered police repression of the 2020 BLM protests and the second study considered repression of the North Dakota pipeline protest. Both protests were minority-led movements with a significant ally presence. Our findings demonstrated that the American public generally disapproves of repression, although it seems that in racial justice protests, police violence might intensify public perceptions of protesters as more radical, but it does not affect support for the cause. To attest the generalizability of these findings to causes that do not lean towards liberal ideologies, we conducted a third study, examining the repression of an anti-abortion protest. The results of this study aligned with the findings of the first two studies, thus suggesting that the public’s reaction to police repression is not related to the identity of the protesters and the specific cause advocated by the movement. Complementing these three experiments, we are currently undertaking a large field study to test the effects of police repression during the 2020 BLM protests (a movement which involved a substantial proportion of allies) on public opinion. This study capitalizes on the Crowd Counting Consortium, which collects data on political crowd activities in the US, including marches, protests, demonstrations, and strikes. This project provides documentation of a majority, if not all, of the 2020 BLM protests that occurred nationwide, based on news reports and publicly accessible social media data. Merging this with the Cooperative Election Study, a survey administered by YouGov to a national stratified sample of over 50,000 respondents, we are currently examining the influence of police violence on public attitudes towards both the police and the BLM movement.
