Catia Teixeira is an Assistant Professor at the University College Fryslan (GRL). She is a social psychologist studying intergroup relations from a social identity perspective. She is especially interested in how situations that directly imply intergroup “struggles” shape group members’ behaviors. To study these situations, she examines intergroup negotiations and reactions to collective protest by advantaged groups. Lately, her focus has been on examining how to mobilize advantaged group members for inequality reduction as part of the NWO funded SCOOP (Sustainable Cooperation) research consortium. She has received funding from the Belgian Science Foundation (FNRS) and the EU under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie funding scheme, among others.
Teixeira C.P., Spears R., & Yzerbyt V.Y. (in press) Is Martin Luther King or Malcolm X the more acceptable face of protest? High-status groups' reactions to low-status groups' collective action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Advance online publication DOI: 10.1037/pspi0000195.
Work on collective action focuses mainly on the perspective of disadvantaged groups. However, the dynamics of social change cannot be fully understood without taking into account the reactions of the members of advantaged groups to collective action by low-status groups. In 10 experiments conducted in 4 different intergroup contexts (N = 1349), we examine advantaged groups support for normative versus non-normative collective action by disadvantaged groups. Experiments 1a to 1e show that normative collective action is perceived as more likely to improve the disadvantaged group's position and that non-normative collective action is perceived as more damaging to the advantaged group's social image. Also, these differences are due to differences in perceptions of actions violating norms of protest and perceptions of protesters as blaming the advantaged group for the inequality. Experiments 2a to 3 show that high compared with low identified members of advantaged groups distinguish more between types of collective action, showing a greater preference for the normative type. Both a mediational design and an experimental-causal-chain design (Experiments 3 and 4) show that support among high identifiers depends more on whether collective action damages the high-status group's social image than on whether it actually reduces inequality. Findings suggest that high-status groups' support for collective action is not only shaped by the perceived likelihood of change but also by its potential damage to the image of the high-status ingroup.
|Last modified:||10 March 2020 4.01 p.m.|