Cited by 1,116Social and Intergroup PsychologySocial Power and Status DynamicsSocial Movements and Cultural Identity

Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is! Explaining Collective Action Tendencies Through Group-Based Anger and Group Efficacy.

van Zomeren, Martijn, Spears, Russell, Fischer, Agneta H., Leach, Colin Wayne·2004·Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Abstract

Insights from appraisal theories of emotion are used to integrate elements of theories on collective action. Three experiments with disadvantaged groups systematically manipulated procedural fairness (Study 1), emotional social support (Study 2), and instrumental social support (Study 3) to examine their effects on collective action tendencies through group-based anger and group efficacy. Results of structural equation modeling showed that procedural fairness and emotional social support affected the group-based anger pathway (reflecting emotion-focused coping), whereas instrumental social support affected the group efficacy pathway (reflecting problem-focused coping), constituting 2 distinct pathways to collective action tendencies. Analyses of the means suggest that collective action tendencies become stronger the more fellow group members "put their money where their mouth is." The authors discuss how their dual pathway model integrates and extends elements of current approaches to collective action.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0022-3514.87.5.649

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
van Zomeren, M., Spears, R., Fischer, A. H., & Leach, C. W.
Affiliations
  • University of Amsterdam (NL)
  • University of California, Santa Cruz (US)
Venue
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Published
2004
Volume
87
Issue
5
Pages
649-664
ISSN
  • 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1315
OpenAlex
W2134558131
Cited by
1,116
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 35 · 2025: 86 · 2024: 76 · 2023: 94 · 2022: 78 · 2021: 82 · 2020: 66 · 2019: 90 · 2018: 58 · 2017: 61 · 2016: 58 · 2015: 61 · 2014: 42 · 2013: 52 · 2012: 40
FWCI
26.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (publishedVersion)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Power and Status Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Movements and Cultural Identity
Keywords
collective action, group-based anger, group efficacy, procedural justice, emotional support, instrumental support, appraisal theory of emotion, emotion-focused coping, problem-focused coping, disadvantaged groups, dual-pathway model
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Analysis of Variance, Anger, Education, Female, Group Processes, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Male, Models, Psychological, Predictive Value of Tests, Social Behavior, Social Identification, Social Perception, Social Support, Students

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review