Cited by 149Social and Intergroup PsychologyPsychology of Moral and Emotional JudgmentElectoral Systems and Political Participation

The importance of protesters' morals: moral obligation as a key variable to understand collective action

Open access
Sabucedo, José-Manuel, Dono, Marcos, Alzate, Mónica, Seoane, Gloria·2018·Frontiers in Psychology

Abstract

Collective action and protest have become a normalised political behaviour that in many cases defines the political agenda. The reasons why people take to the streets constitutes a central subject within the study of Social Psychology. In the literature, three precedents of protest that have been established as central to the study of this phenomenon are: injustice, efficacy and identity. But political action is also deeply related to moral values. This explains why in recent years some moral constructs have also been pointed out as predictors of collective action. Moral variables have been introduced into the literature with little consideration to how they relate to each other. Thus, work in this direction is needed. The general aim of this research is to differentiate moral obligation from moral norms and moral conviction, as well as to compare their ability to predict collective action. In order to do so, the research objectives are: a) conceptualise and operationalise moral obligation (Study 1, N= 171); b) test its predictive power for intention to participate in protests (Study 2, N= 622); and c) test moral obligation in a real context (Study 3, N= 407). Results are encouraging, showing not only that moral obligation is different to moral conviction and moral norm, but also that it is a more effective predictor working both for intention and real participation. This work therefore presents moral obligation as a key precedent of protest participation, prompting its future use as a variable that can enhance existing predictive models of collective action. Results regarding other variables are also discussed.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00418

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Meta-analytical reviews support that agreement with self-transcendence values is a factor conducive to collective action.

    “agreement with self-trascendence values, that could reinforce moral conviction supportive of collective action (Sabucedo et al., 2018; Agostini and van Zomeren, 2021)”

    From Emotional processes, collective behavior, and social movements: A meta-analytic review of collective effervescence outcomes during collective gatherings and demonstrations (2022) · cites this paper as Sabucedo et al., 2018

    The Introduction’s ‘Moral Norm and Moral Conviction’ section says moral conviction predicts collective action, and its ‘Moral Obligation’ section links moral motivation to personal values. Neither passage identifies self-transcendence values or shows that agreement with them reinforces moral conviction; the cited paper is not presented as a meta-analytical review. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 58 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Blackburn S. (2008). Oxford Dictionary of Philosophyq. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  2. Gamson W. A. (1992). Talking Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sabucedo, J.-M., Dono, M., Alzate, M., & Seoane, G.
Affiliations
Universidade de Santiago de Compostela (ES)
Corresponding author
Dono, Marcos
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Published
2018-03-27
Volume
9
Pages
418-418
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2795179140
Cited by
149
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2
FWCI
19.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Hispana (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Repositorio institucional da Universidade de Santiago de Compostela (University of Santiago de Compostela) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (BDNS (Identif.): 316231, PSI2015-66608- P)
  • Consellería de Cultura, Educación e Ordenación Universitaria, Xunta de Galicia (2016-PG055)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
Keywords
moral obligation, collective action, protest participation, moral conviction, moral norms, moral values, injustice, perceived efficacy, political identity

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