Textbook: Theories in Social Psychology 1st Edition (Chapters 6, 9-10)- Derek Chadee & Social Psychology 11th Edition-Saul Kassin, Markus, & Fein

European Journal of Social Psychology, Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 43, 614–626 (2013) Published online 16 September 2013 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.1983

Research article

The ironic impact of activists: Negative stereotypes reduce social change influence

NADIA Y. BASHIR1*, PENELOPE LOCKWOOD1, ALISON L. CHASTEEN1, DANIEL NADOLNY2 AND INDRA NOYES1 1 Department of Psychology, University of Toronto, Canada;

2 University of Waterloo, Canada

Abstract

Despite recognizing the need for social change in areas such as social equality and environmental protection, individuals often avoid supporting such change. Researchers have previously attempted to understand this resistance to social change by examining individuals’ perceptions of social issues and social change. We instead examined the possibility that individuals resist social change because they have negative stereotypes of activists, the agents of social change. Participants had negative stereotypes of activists (feminists and environmentalists), regardless of the domain of activism, viewing them as eccentric and militant. Furthermore, these stereotypes reduced participants’ willingness to affiliate with ‘typical’ activists and, ultimately, to adopt the behaviours that these activists promoted. These results indicate that stereotypes and person perception processes more generally play a key role in creating resistance to social change. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

In 1964, the U.S. Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act, outlawing racial and gender discrimination (National Archives and Records Administration, 2011). More recently, in 2010, President Obama repealed the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, allowing openly gay Americans to serve in the military (The Library of Congress, 2011). These landmark events occurred only after activists spent many years actively challenging the status quo (House Committee on Armed Services, 1993; National Archives and Records Administra- tion, 2011), illustrating that long periods of slow progress typically precede social change. Such slow progress is at odds with research indicating that many individuals believe that it is important, socially desirable and moral to address social justice concerns (Beattie, 2010; Nelson et al., 2008). If individuals believe that social change is crucial and socially valued, they should generally be supportive of and responsive to the activists who advocate it. Yet although activists enthusiastically strive to address social justice concerns and are at times successful in promoting social change (e.g. Czopp, Monteith, & Mark, 2006), they often encounter substantial resistance from the public (Nelson et al., 2008; Superson & Cudd, 2002). Ironically, it may be this enthusiasm with which activists promote social change that undermines their impact: Rather than admiring their determination to address critical social issues, individuals may associate activists with negative stereotypes, viewing them as militant and eccentric. Accord- ingly, individuals may avoid affiliating with activists and disregard their pro-change initiatives. We examined this directly.

To date, researchers have attempted to understand resistance to social change by examining individuals’ perceptions of social issues, attitudes towards social change and personality traits.

*Correspondence to: Nadia Y. Bashir, Department of Psychology, University of E-mail: [email protected]

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Researchers have assessed, for example, whether individuals avoid supporting social change because they deny or fail to perceive that a social issue or injustice exists (Gifford, 2011), perceive the issue to be personally irrelevant (Hodson & Esses, 2002) or believe that the status quo is acceptable (Morton, Postmes, Haslam, & Hornsey, 2009). In addition, researchers have examined whether individuals resist social change because they believe that it threatens positive aspects of the status quo (Kay & Friesen, 2011) or conflicts with their goals and beliefs (Feygina, Jost, & Goldsmith, 2010; Zárate, Shaw, Marquez, & Biagas, 2012). Finally, several studies have examined the personal characteristics that are associated with reduced support for social change, such as political conservatism and authoritari- anism (Agronick & Duncan, 1998; van Zomeren, Postmes, & Spears, 2008). Although this past research provides important insight into the theoretical basis for resistance to social change, one key element has been largely ignored: individuals’ perceptions of the people who strive to achieve this change, the activists themselves.

Indeed, even when individuals have perceptions of social issues and social change that are conducive to change (e.g. favourable perceptions of feminism), they are often still reluctant to identify with those who advocate this change (e.g. feminists; Aronson, 2003). Furthermore, individuals view activists in a variety of domains negatively: Feminists, for example, are typi- cally viewed unfavourably as aggressive, unconventional and unpleasant people (Berryman-Fink & Verderber, 1985; Twenge & Zucker, 1991). Similarly, portrayals of environmentalists and gay rights activists in government reports and sociological texts suggest that individuals view these activists as eccentric and militant (Brown, 2007; Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI],

Toronto, 100 St. George Street, Toronto, ON M5S 3G3, Canada.

Received 22 September 2012, Accepted 20 August 2013

The ironic impact of activists 615

2001). Because activists, by definition, strive to effect change by publicly criticizing mainstream practices, they may be seen as hostile, unconventional and unpleasant. This tendency to associate activists with negative stereotypes may ultimately reduce individuals’ willingness to affiliate with activists and adopt the pro-change behaviours that activists espouse.

Specifically, because individuals strive to maintain a positive self-concept (Sedikides & Gregg, 2008) and consider their group memberships to be important components of their self-concepts, individuals typically desire membership in only those groups that they view positively (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). If individuals associate activists with negative stereotypes, therefore, they may avoid affiliating with activists who conform to these stereotypes (i.e. ‘typical’ activists), which may in turn reduce the likelihood that individuals will adopt behaviours that are characteristic of ‘typical’ activists. That is, because individuals have a strong need to belong and experience social acceptance (Baumeister & Leary, 1995), they may avoid engaging in behaviours that would character- ize them as individuals with whom it may seem unpleasant to affiliate. Given that individuals who are merely associated with stigmatized others can face prejudice and social rejection (Pryor, Reeder, & Monroe, 2012), individuals may fear that they too will be stigmatized and rejected by others if they affiliate with ‘typical’ activists and perform behaviours that are characteristic of such activists. Indeed, consistent with bal- ance theory (Heider, 1958), individuals may in part agree with social change ideologies but nevertheless avoid adopting pro-change behaviours because the ‘typical’ activists who advocate these behaviours seem dislikeable. By rejecting pro-change advocacy, individuals can distance themselves from individuals who are generally viewed negatively by soci- ety. In support of this possibility, evidence indicates that indi- viduals are less likely to adopt the opinions of stigmatized (e.g. Black or gay) versus nonstigmatized targets (Clark & Maass, 1988; White & Harkins, 1994). Although these studies do not show that negative stereotypes of stigmatized targets reduce individuals’ receptiveness to these targets, they are consistent with the possibility that individuals avoid adopting opinions espoused by targets whom they view negatively. Thus, individuals may at times resist social change, not neces- sarily because they have negative attitudes towards social issues or social change as previous research has indicated (e.g. Feygina et al., 2010; Hodson & Esses, 2002; van Zomeren et al., 2008) but rather because they have negative stereotypes of the agents of social change.

In five studies, therefore, we examined whether stereotypes of activists enhance resistance to social change by reducing individuals’ willingness to affiliate with activists and, ultimately, to adopt the pro-change behaviours that activists advocate. We first identified the stereotypes of two key activist groups and assessed how these stereotypes affect individuals’ willingness to affiliate with ‘typical’ activists (i.e. those who conform to activist stereotypes) and ‘atypical’ activists (i.e. those who do not conform to activist stereotypes; Studies 1 and 3–5). We then examined the extent to which activist stereotypes influence individuals’ motivation to adopt pro-change behaviours advocated by ‘typical’ versus ‘atypical’ activists (Study 2), because it affects their willingness to affiliate with these activists (Studies 3 and 4). We predicted that individuals

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

would be more likely to associate ‘typical’ activists with negative stereotypes, and consequently, they would avoid affiliating with and, ultimately, adopting the behaviours advocated by these activists.

PILOT STUDIES

We examined the influence of activist stereotypes on resistance to social change by focusing on two key activist groups: feminists and environmentalists. We chose to examine specific groups to show that, although there may be some differences in the specific traits that individuals associate with various activist groups, these stereotypes overlap considerably and have similar implications for resistance to social change. Because researchers have not previously examined the traits that individuals associate with environmentalists and because past research on feminist stereotypes may not reflect current perceptions of feminists, we first conducted a set of pilot studies to identify current stereotypes of these groups.

PILOT STUDIES A AND B

Method

Participants in Pilot Study A were 13 male and 26 female Americans recruited online via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (Mage = 37.59 years, SD = 12.32) who received $0.20. Partici- pants in Pilot Study B were 49 male and 92 female undergrad- uate students (Mage = 19.44 years, SD = 2.02) who received course credit or $10.

Participants in Pilot Study A were randomly assigned to rate the extent to which 12 ‘militant/aggressive’ (e.g. ‘aggressive’ and ‘forceful’), 9 ‘eccentric/unconventional’ (e.g. ‘eccentric’ and ‘unusual’) and 12 ‘personable’ (‘friendly’ and ‘pleasant’; all Cronbach’s αs > .91) traits, which were selected on the basis of past research on feminist stereotypes (Berryman-Fink & Verderber, 1985; Twenge & Zucker, 1991), were characteris- tic of either a ‘typical’ feminist or a ‘typical’ American. Ratings were made along 7-point scales anchored at 1 (not at all characteristic of a ‘typical’ feminist/American) and 7 (very characteristic of a ‘typical’ feminist/American).

In Pilot Study B, participants assigned to one condition rated the extent to which 12 militant/aggressive (e.g. ‘militant’ and ‘abrasive’), 14 eccentric/unconventional (e.g. ‘eccentric’ and ‘odd-looking’) and 12 personable (e.g. ‘pleasant’ and ‘personable’; all αs > .81) traits were characteristic of a ‘typi- cal’ environmentalist. We note that these traits overlapped heavily with those used in aforementioned Pilot Study A but were selected on the basis of representations of environmental- ists in sociological texts and government reports (Brown, 2007; FBI, 2001). Participants assigned to a second condition rated a ‘typical’ university student, an individual whom student participants would view as a more mainstream member of society, on the same traits. Ratings were made along 7-point scales anchored at 1 (not at all characteristic of a ‘typical’ environmentalist/student) and 7 (very characteristic of a ‘typical’ environmentalist/student).

Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 43, 614–626 (2013)

616 Nadia Y. Bashir et al.

Results

Pilot Study A

Independent t-tests revealed that participants viewed both militant and eccentric traits to be more characteristic of ‘typical’ feminists (Mmilitant = 5.36, SD = 1.26; Meccentric = 4.67, SD = 1.29) than of ‘typical’ Americans (Mmilitant = 4.05, SD = 1.23; Meccentric = 3.18, SD = 0.91), ts > 3.25, ps < .003, rs .47. Personable traits, in comparison, were viewed as less characteristic of ‘typical’ feminists (M = 3.55, SD = 1.29) than of ‘typical’ Americans (M = 4.60, SD = 0.69), t(37) = 3.31, p = .002, r = .48.

Pilot Study B

Two participants who were asked to rate a ‘typical’ student and indicated that there is no such thing as a ‘typical’ student were excluded. Thus, 49 male and 90 female participants were included in analyses. As was the case for feminists, partici- pants viewed ‘typical’ environmentalists (Meccentric = 5.06, SD = 0.60; Mmilitant = 3.59, SD = 0.79; Mpersonable = 4.09, SD = 0.64) as more eccentric, more militant and less person- able than ‘typical’ students (Meccentric = 3.92, SD = 0.52; Mmilitant = 3.29, SD = 0.57; Mpersonable = 4.54, SD = 0.56), ts > 2.25, ps < .04, rs > .19.1

Pilot Study C

Pilot Studies A and B indicate that individuals have negative stereotypes of two key activist groups: feminists and environ- mentalists. Given that the traits included in these pilot studies were selected from previous research and scholarly texts (e.g. Brown, 2007; Twenge & Zucker, 1991), we used these pilot studies as a basis for creating the stereotype measures used in Studies 1–3. We also, however, conducted an additional pilot study to verify that the traits identified in Pilot Studies A and B are not simply an artefact of the specific traits included in these initial pilot studies. We then used the traits identified in this additional pilot study to create the stereotype measure for Studies 4 and 5. In Pilot Study C, participants generated their own traits of ‘typical’ feminists and environmentalists.

Method

Participants were 228 Americans recruited online via Ama- zon’s Mechanical Turk (Mage = 33.75 years, SD = 11.71) who received $0.60. There were 92 male and 131 female participants. Five participants did not identify their biological sex. Participants generated 20 traits characteristic of a ‘typical’ feminist and 20 traits characteristic of a ‘typical’ environmentalist. The order of tasks was counterbalanced across participants.

1Participants may have viewed ‘typical’ environmentalists as less militant than personable because they were reluctant to endorse the extreme items (e.g. ‘criminal’) in the militant index. Participants were, nevertheless, more likely to associate militant traits with ‘typical’ environmentalists versus ‘typical’ students.

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Results

As predicted, the majority of traits that participants listed as being characteristic of ‘typical’ feminists and environmental- ists were militant/aggressive and eccentric/unconventional traits. Table 1 contains the 30 most frequently listed traits for each group. Specifically, feminists were described in terms of militant/aggressive traits, such as ‘man hating’ and ‘force- ful’, and with eccentric/unconventional traits, such as ‘behaves like a man’ and ‘unhygienic’. Environmentalists were described in terms of militant/aggressive traits, such as ‘militant’ and ‘forceful’, and eccentric/unconventional traits, such as ‘eccentric’ and ‘tree-hugger’. Participants listed additional traits describing feminists or environmentalists that did not fall obviously into either of these categories (e.g. ‘animal lover’ and ‘Democrat’). Overall, however, the traits provided were overwhelmingly negative, with only a handful of more positive traits (e.g. ‘caring’ and ‘educated’) appearing on either list. Thus, it appears that individuals have negative perceptions of both feminists and environmentalists, viewing them primarily as aggressive militants and unconventional eccentrics rather than as pleasant and personable individuals. Notably, although we did not ask participants to describe either environmental or feminist ‘activists’ per se, they spon- taneously ascribed this trait to both groups: ‘activist’ was one of the top 10 most frequently listed traits for both groups.

STUDY 1

Maintaining a positive self-concept is a key goal for individuals (Sedikides & Gregg, 2008). Thus, if negative stereotypes char- acterize ‘typical’ activists as militant and eccentric, individuals may avoid affiliating with them. In Study 1, we examined this directly. Participants in one condition read about a ‘typical’ fem- inist, an individual who promoted women’s rights by organizing protests and challenging traditional representations of women. Participants in a second condition read about an ‘atypical’, personable feminist; this enabled us to examine whether partici- pants reacted negatively to all feminists or only to those who fit feminist stereotypes. Control participants read about an individ- ual whose stance on feminism was not described (i.e. an undefined target). All participants then rated the extent to which feminist stereotype traits were characteristic of the target, as well as their interest in affiliating with the target. We predicted that participants would be less interested in affiliating with the ‘typical’ feminist relative to the ‘atypical’ feminist and the undefined target, because they would be more likely to associate the ‘typical’ feminist with negative stereotypical traits.

We also used this study as an opportunity to rule out potential alternative explanations for our findings. Individuals who may be implicated in morally questionable behaviours dislike ‘moral rebels’, people who appear to condemn the behaviour by defending relevant social or moral values (Monin, Sawyer, & Marquez, 2008). Thus, individuals may express less desire in affiliating with ‘typical’ activists, not because they associate these targets with negative stereotypes but because they expect these activists to view them as immoral for failing to be similarly committed to promoting social change. Alternatively, given that

Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 43, 614–626 (2013)

Table 1. Thirty most frequently mentioned traits describing ‘typical’ feminists and ‘typical’ environmentalists

Activist group Traits

‘Typical’ feminist Man hating (145), lesbian (133), unhygienic (95), angry (89), behaves like a man (87), unattractive (84), liberal (79), ambitious (73), loud (72), activist (72), mean (71), spinster (67), independent (65), forceful (65), assertive (64), whiny (63), abrasive (62), protester (57), competent (54), dresses like a man (53), self-righteous (51), bitter (49), overreactive (48), educated (47), strong-willed (45), strong (45), intolerant (44), irrational (42), annoying (42), bad dresser (42)

‘Typical’ environmentalist

Tree-hugger (151), vegetarian (124), hippie (124), liberal (111), unhygienic (91), militant (89), eccentric (85), activist (82), caring (81), protester (79), overreactive (68), unfashionable (63), self-righteous (61), educated (60), drug user (53), hairy (52), determined (52), stupid (51), intelligent (50), zealous (48), nontraditional (45), outdoorsy (43), forceful (43), animal lover (41), intolerant (40), helpful (40), Democrat (40), annoying (40), crazy (37), irrational (36)

Note: Values in parentheses indicate the number of participants who listed the trait.

The ironic impact of activists 617

similarity breeds liking (Byrne, 1971), individuals may express less desire to affiliate with ‘typical’ activists because these activists seem highly dissimilar to them. In Study 1, therefore, we examined not only participants’ tendency to attribute negative stereotypes to the target but also the extent to which they (i) believed that the target would view them as immoral and (ii) viewed themselves to be similar to the target.

2Stereotype traits items in Studies 1 and 2: radical, man hating, bitter, activist, aggressive, inflexible, argumentative, opinionated, outspoken, defensive, militant, preachy, hostile, forceful, nonconformist, confrontational, weird, strange, odd, ugly, eccentric, unconventional, nontraditional, unusual, approachable, fun, pleasant, friendly, popular, fashionable, social, cool and interesting (the last nine traits were reverse-scored).

Method

Participants

Participants were 17 male and 45 female undergraduate students (Mage =19.43years, SD= 4.99) who received course credit.

Procedure

Participants were randomly assigned to read a gender-neutral profile of a student who represented a ‘typical’ feminist, an ‘atypical’ feminist or an undefined target. Participants in the undefined target condition read about a target whose stance on feminism was not described (e.g. ‘When my weekends aren’t packed with schoolwork and volunteer activities, I usually spend the day watching TV or hanging out at coffee shops’). Participants in both the ‘typical’ and ‘atypical’ condi- tions read about a target who promoted feminism. However, whereas the ‘typical’ target used methods that were consistent with the stereotypes of feminists (e.g. ‘I also organize rallies outside corporate and political institutions in the community to pressure CEOs and politicians who don’t prioritize women’s rights issues into resigning’), the ‘atypical’ target promoted feminism in a nonstereotypical way, using nonabrasive and mainstream methods (e.g. ‘I’m involved in organizing social events at clubs and lounges to raise money for women’s rights organizations’). A separate group of participants rated the extent to which the ‘typical’ or ‘atypical’ feminist represented a ‘typical’ feminist on a scale anchored at 1 (not at all represen- tative of a ‘typical’ feminist) and 7 (very representative of a ‘typical’ feminist). The ‘typical’ feminist (M = 5.40, SD = 1.69) seemed more ‘typical’ of feminists than did the ‘atypical’ feminist (M = 4.38, SD = 1.48), t(39) = 2.84, p = .007, r = .41.

Next, participants rated the student on the 33 feminist stereotype traits identified in Pilot Study A (e.g. militant, eccentric and pleasant [reverse-scored]; α = .93) along 7-point scales anchored at 1 (not at all characteristic of the student)

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

and 7 (very characteristic of the student).2 Participants then rated seven items concerning their interest in affiliating with the student (e.g. ‘I can see myself being friends with this student’; adapted from Montoya & Horton, 2004; α = .89) along 7-point scales anchored at 1 (STRONGLY DISAGREE) and 7 (STRONGLY DISAGREE). Last, participants rated the extent to which they thought the student would view them as immoral (‘If he/she knew me, the student I read about would think that I am …’ [reverse-scored]; modified from Minson & Monin, 2012) and the extent to the student was similar to them (‘The student I read about is…’). These ratings were made along 7-point scales anchored at 1 (not at all moral/not at all similar to me) and 7 (very moral/very similar to me).

Analytic Strategy

We argue that individuals avoid affiliating with and adopting the behaviours advocated by ‘typical’ activists relative to ‘atypical’ activists and undefined targets because they are particularly likely to associate negative activist stereotypes with only those targets that are perceived to be ‘typical’ members of the gr

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.