Determinants of collective action and strategies to undertake for activist organizations

Topics in Organizational Behavior Nic GÖRTZ Prof. Patricia Garcia-Prieto Chevalier

- 1 -

Determinants of collective action and strategies to undertake for activist organizations

Nic GÖRTZ

PhD student Centre de Sociologie des Organisations

Centre Emile Bernheim Université Libre de Bruxelles

"First they ignore you

Then they laugh at you Then they fight you

Then you win."

Gandhi As Klandermans (2002) states : « Collective action is not a very common response to injustice ». Most people will just continue do what are used to, that is, nothing. However, we state it is the activist organizations’ purpose to make people deliberately react towards a perceived as unjust situation and to correct and better the situation they face. In the field of social psychology of protest, Klandermans (1997) identified three core concepts leading to collective action: injustice, efficacy – “the conviction that it is possible to change the situation via collective action at reasonable cost” (Klandersmans, 2002, p.888) – and group identity – the affective component of social identity. These concepts echo back Gamson’s Talking Politics (1992) that highlighted the importance of injustice, agency – the belief that together, people can do something about a problem – and identity. Considering that activist organizations have to build up collective actions, and based on these three collective action pillars, the purpose of this paper is to identify various resources and operations that activist organizations should be aware of in order to reach their goals.


- 2 -

The paper will be structured in three parts, each related to one concept. However, as there are common strategies or resources to be mobilized for the development of each concept, these will be summarized in the conclusion. INJUSTICE Understanding the justice perception model Foster and Rusbult (1999, p.835) refer to justice as “the degree to which a situation is perceived to be fair with regard to distribution of outcomes, the procedure by which outcomes are distributed or both”. Lupfer et al. (2000) suggest taking into account a third criterion: interpersonal consideration that refers to how the procedures are led with regard to the individuals. In fact, while ordinary people seem to consider that fairness is mostly dominated by procedural considerations, unfairness seems to be equally influenced by procedural, distributive and interpersonal considerations (Lupfer et al. (2000)). Hegtvedt (2006, p.47) details what she considers to be a basic model in the justice perception literature.

FIGURE 1: basic model of justice perception

The perceiver is the actor who assesses the distribution, the procedure or the means to treat individuals. S/he may or may not be the recipient of the outcomes but Lupfer et al. (2000) show that people are more likely to react if they are treated unfairly than if other people were. Identification process is one of the means to overcome this problem and will be dealt with later in the next pages.

Perceiver factors: Characterics

Beliefs Motivations

Situational factors

Justice evaluation

Emotional reactions

Cognitive and behavioral reactions


- 3 -

The justice evaluation “expresses the observer’s [perceiver’s] judgment and sentiment that the rewardee [recipient] (possibly him or herself) is justly or unjustly treated, and if unjustly treated whether over-rewarded or under-rewarded and to what degree” (Jasso, 2002, p.41, cited in Hegtvedt, 2006). Justice evaluation is both a cognitive and comparative driven process. From a social cognitive viewpoint, Hegtvedt (2006) presumes that justice evaluation is driven by the will to make sense out of social experiences, given beliefs about what is right or wrong. However, from a social comparison standpoint, justice evaluation can be found in two cases: when a group compares to another or when an individual compares to a group. At the last stage of this model, the cognitive response tends to restore a sense of psychological justice while behavioral response restores actual justice. According to the model, behavioral and cognitive reactions – that are both necessary for most activist organizations to make change possible – depend on emotional reactions and on justice evaluation, that itself relies on perceiver’s and situational factors. However, as it seems difficult to act upon or influence the perceiver’s inner characteristics, only actions that might be undertaken on beliefs, motivation or situational factors will be dealt with further on1. Situational factors: make sense out of an (unjust) situation A situation is a combination of circumstances that have to be interpreted. One of the roots of collective action is to have a shared interpretation of a situation. However, according to the individuals, their beliefs and past experiences (Czarniawska, 2005; Hegtvedt, 2006), situations can be interpreted in various ways and therefore prevent or foster collective action. Resolving potential discordant interpretations thus requires sensemaking: negotiation and construction of a mutually shared agreement on the causal linkages and desired outcomes; otherwise said, "framing" the situation (Weick 1985; Weick and Meader 1993). According to Weick (1993), “the basic idea of sensemaking is that reality is an ongoing accomplishment that emerges from efforts to create order and make retrospective sense of what occurs. (…) Sensemaking emphasizes that people try to make things rationally accountable to themselves and others”. He breaks up the process of sensemaking for the perceiver into five processes: effectuating, triangulating, affiliating, deliberating and consolidating (Weick, 1996, p.215). “Effectuating refers to the fact of producing events to see what happens. In short: “to know, you have to act” (Eppler, 2006, p.84). Triangulating and affiliating refer to the same type of of cross-

1 Situational factors will be dealt with on p.3, beliefs on p.9 and motivation on p.7.


- 4 -

checking process, except that triangulation works upon data whilst affiliation works upon people’s opinions and perspectives. Both processes aim at comparing and validating information in order to make interpretations converge. Deliberating refers to the process of information assimilation by the recipient: information has to be integrated in a way that allows the recipient to have time to interpret and reflect about the meaning. Finally, consolidation might be summarized by Weick’s statement (1996, p.216): “people learn about events when they can put them in a context”. In short, people need action, multiple information sources (data and persons), time and context in order to make sense of a situation. Generate emotional reaction Although Giroux (2006) considers that Weick completely neglects the role of emotions, Vidaillet (2006), highlights the fact that Weick, even though he has not paid much attention to emotions, yet has not completely left them behind. “A key event for emotion is the “interruption of an expectation”. (…) Emotion is what happens between the time that an organized sequence is interrupted and the time at which the interruption is removed, or a substitute response is found that allows the sequence to be complete” (Weick, 1995, p.46). “An emotion can be understood as some combination of physiological activation, facial and vocal expressions, and to actions that individuals try to understand” (Gross and Thompson (2007), cited by Wranik et al. (2007). Emotions were and still are often perceived as antagonistic to rationality. The subjective character of emotions encourages people to banish them from decision-making, planning or any other supposed rational activity (Cacioppo and Gardner, 1999). Though, inasmuch as emotions cannot be avoided, they should be used in an efficient, adaptive and canalized manner to influence one’s behavior and deal with the environment. This is called emotional intelligence. Salovey and Mayer (1990, p.189) define emotional intelligence as “the ability to monitor one’s own and others’ feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them, and to use this information to guide one’s thinking and actions”. The same authors (1997) also decompose emotional intelligence into four branches (see Wranik et al., 2007): perception of emotion, using emotion to facilitate thought, emotion knowledge (understanding emotion) and managing emotion. In the justice perception model, emotional reaction is a prelude to cognitive and behavioral reaction. Thus, it is of major importance for activist organizations, and especially for its leaders, to be able to manage theirs but especially others’ emotions in order to provoke reactions in relation to a particular situation. Considering this, emotional intelligence must be paired with emotional regulation – work on own emotions’ expression – and emotional contagion – spreading the emotion to other group members (see Barsade and Gibson (2007) for review).


- 5 -

FIGURE 2 : The Revised Emotional Intelligence Framework (as described by Mayer and Salovey, 1997),

reproduced from Cartwright and Pappas (2008)


- 6 -

Barsalou (1999) highlights the role assumed by perceptual symbols2 in storing knowledge about abstract concepts – for example emotion. One of those perceptual symbols’ characteristics is that they are dynamic and changeable. Wranik et al. (2007) provides the example of a child who observes a link made by an adult between a certain behavior and an emotion. The child will extract information about the instance, the psychological situation, the environment, the regulation strategies that worked and those that did not. S/he will finally integrate this new information with past information that was associated to the same category and that had already been stored in his memory. Knowing this, activist leaders should develop the ability to behave and express their feelings in regard to a situation in a way that creates strong links between a situation, a behavior and an emotion. They should learn shaping emotional reactions. Lessons from injustice According to the basic justice perception model, several variables can be acted upon. These are situational factors, perceiver’s beliefs and motivation, the process of justice evaluation and the emotional reactions. Currently, two major points can be stressed out. First, activist organizations should propose and organize (small but) concrete actions. Behavioral manifestations contribute to provide sense and to restore actual justice. Moreover, it is likely that action contributes to the feeling of efficacy that is highlighted by Klandermans (2002). Second, activist organizations should become aware of the need for framing. Weick (1996) emphasizes the importance of context setting in the sensemaking process, which is of course matter of interpretation. The justice evaluation process – in its cognitive part – needs the framing to define and then restore a sense of psychological justice whilst there is a need to frame emotional reactions, because of their dynamic and changing nature, in order for them to be used effectively by the leaders and active members of activist organizations. They should develop emotional intelligence. EFFICACY Klandermans (2002, p.888) refers to efficacy as “the conviction that is it possible to change the situation via collective action at reasonable cost”. So the question is not whether it is possible to change the situation but rather how to make people believe they could contribute to change. 2 According to Barsalou, (1999, p. 583) « a perceptual symbol is not the record of the entire brain state that underlies a perception. Instead, it is only a very small subset that represents a coherent aspect of the state ». Perceptual symbols serve as tool for categorizing perceived objects, individuals or situations and comparing them. They allow, through a the creation of a frame that is “an integrated system of perceptual symbols” (Barsalou, 1999, p.590) to reconstruct a representation of an object, individual or situation.


- 7 -

Below, we will emphasize the role of motivation, particularly by referring to Atkinson’s achievement motivation work. This will allow us to separate its determinants and find out which one(s) we could leverage to make people engage. Atkinson’s achievement motivation theory: determinants of motivation As he sees it, achievement behavior is the resultant of an emotional conflict between hopes for

successes and fears of failures (Weiner, 1992). Hope for success is symbolized by the tendency to approach an achievement-related goal (

€

Ts). It is the product of three factors: the motive for success (

€

Ms) – or “the capacity to experience pride in accomplishment” (Atkinson, 1964, p.214) -, the probability to be successful in the task (

€

Ps) – the cognitive goal expectancy that instrumental action will lead to the goal – and the incentive value of success (

€

Is) – the pride in accomplishment.

€

Ts = Ms × Ps × Is On the other hand, fear for failure is expressed like this:

€

TAF = MAF × Pf × (−I f )

with

€

TAF being the tendency to avoid failure,

€

MAF the motive to avoid failure,

€

Pf the probability of

failure and

€

(−I f ) the incentive value of failure.

Atkinson’s hypothesis is that the tendency to approach or avoid an achievement-oriented activity (TA) is the resultant of the tendency to approach the task minus the tendency to avoid the task:

€

TA = Ts −TAF In this article, we particularly focus on the probability to be successful in the task (

€

Ps) or in other words, on the cognitive goal expectancy that action will be followed by the achievement of the goal. According to Tolman (1932), expectancy increases with the number of rewarded trials. Based on this, Weiner (1992), based on literature, identified different strategies to manipulate

€

Ps: supplying subjects with normative information about the difficulty of the task – for example “our norms indicate that __% of the students at your age are able to solve the problem” – , having subjects competing with varying numbers of other subjects – the probability of success differs if you compete with one or twenty people – or varying the actual difficulty of the task. At the end,


- 8 -

these strategies put people in a situation of which the environment has been framed in a certain way. Here again, we find out again that perception and interpretation of the environment play a crucial role in bringing people to action. Next paragraphs will thus highlight the importance and the role of framing. Influencing the cognitive goal expectancy: the role of framing As said previously, emotions have to be canalized upon one (unjust) situation that is attributed to a cause. Movement frames embody two essential components: the diagnostic element – the identification of the problem and its source – and the prognostic element – the appropriate strategy to tackle the problem (Snow and Benford, 1988). Framing is “assign[ing] meaning to and interpret[ing] relevant events and conditions in ways that are intended to mobilize potential adherents and constituents, to garner bystander support, and to demobilize antagonists” (Snow and Benford, 1988, p.198). And as Zald (1996) underlines, framing is part of the strategy of collective movements. Walsh (1995) notes that knowledge structures – such as frames – are useful but also limit decision makers’ comprehension of environment and compromise decision-making abilities. However, activist organizations do not pretend to be unbiased as Klandermans and Goslinga (1996) show for disability allowance and the role played by the unions in the Netherlands. As framing is a tool, it can be used to select and orient decision-making in a certain way only by providing a biased meaning or interpretation of a situation. The point, however, is to know how to operate framing. Framing, and especially injustice framing must find its way between “cold cognition of an overdetermined structural analysis and the hot cognition of misplaced concreteness” (Gamson, 1995, p.92). Injustice framework, he argues, is the key element upon which agency and identity are constructed and relies on three main resources: media discourse, personal experience and popular wisdom (Gamson, 1992). In these resources, we can distinguish on one hand discourses that interpret facts and automatically imply biases (media discourse and personal experience) and on the other hand discourses more related to deeply rooted traditions or cultures. Martin Luther King for example had become very efficient at rooting his discourses and actions in American tradition and culture (see McAdam (1996) for more details). Injustice framework development thus implies to master both the information channels and the culture of the place3 collective action is intended to take place. Considering that framing should aim at modifying individual beliefs, Klandermans and Goslinga (1996) highlight individual beliefs’ determinants: (1) the use of sources of information (such as media discourse, experiential knowledge and popular wisdom), (2) interpersonal interaction and (3) 3 This of course depends on the scope of the movement.


- 9 -

individual dispositions. The interpersonal interaction allows people to confront ideas – like in Weick’s affiliation process (and generally with like-minded people) – to search for consensus, a collective definition of the situation people face. Finally, McAdam (1996) stresses that framing, in the sense of the development of “signifying work”, cannot be dissociated from action, and particularly from participation to action. So individuals not only need information and personal exchange to share a situational analysis through but also need to concretely participate to action, which is consistent with Weick and Hegtvedt’s theories. Lessons from efficacy Combining Weick and McAdam thoughts leads to the paradox that people have to believe in collective movement’s efficacy in order to participate to collective movement whilst participation requires believing in collective action’s efficacy. However, tackling the “cognitive goal expectancy that instrumental action will lead to the goal” can be influenced by various means: Tolman refers to personal experience, Weiner (1992) focuses on (normative) information about the competition faced or the task attributed to the individual whist several authors stress the importance of developing a injustice framework that would make sense out of a situation. Framing also aims at modifying personal beliefs that rely on the use of sources of information, interpersonal interaction and individual dispositions. To summarize, activist organizations, in order to making people believe in collective action success, need to encourage participation, which itself can be fostered by controlling and shaping information through various media and personal interactions. And these interactions might serve the identification process, the third pillar of collective action. IDENTITY Determinants to group identity and role of the leader We could not omit the role of identity, and particularly the role of group identity. Conceived as the link between collective and social identity, group identity is the imperative step without which there can be no preference for collective action among group participants (Klandermans and de Weerd, 2000). Collective identity is refered to as “the interactive and shared definition produced by several individuals (or groups at the more complex level) and concerned with the orientation of action and field of opportunities and constraints in which action takes place” (Melucci, 1996, p.49) whilst social identity is “a part of person’s self-concept that relates to his or her awareness of


- 10 -

belonging to a specific group or category and has a certain value and emotional meaning” (Klandermans and de Weerd, 2000, p.71). The previously highlighted paradox stated that individuals should participate to collective action in order to develop beliefs in collective actions efficacy that would itself lead to participation. For Klandermans and de Weerd (2000), participation is linked to group identity that is itself linked to action preparedness (Figure 3) with action preparedness being the fact of confirming during interviews being ready to undertake collective action. Even though this does not solve the chicken and the egg problem, it seems to be relevant for activist leaders to understand some determinants of group identity. The identification process comes from a need for approval and certainty (Mucchielli, 2004). In return for this, group members apply pressure for conformity that ends up assuring group behavior and accepting as true information validated by the group. Hogg (2006) distinguishes three motivations for social identity: self-enhancement (allowing to increase self-esteem), uncertainty reduction and optimal distinctiveness. Moreover, he recalls that groups obey to the metacontrast principle that states that group configuration maximizes the ratio of perceived intergroup differences to intragroup differences, which favors an “us and them” behavior and cognition. This metacontrast principle is favored by framing with own media sources, personal experiences or

FIGURE 3 – Link between group identity and participation – Inspired by Klandermans and de Weerd (2000)


- 11 -

interpersonal contacts4 that requires the constitution of a tight network in which every new entrant is taken care of. The same metaconstrast principle ends up choosing as leader the most prototypical person (Hogg, 2006), the one that symbolizes the most the identity of the group that relies on symbols, rituals, and shared beliefs of values (Klandermans and de Weerd, 2000). Moreover, as shown previously, leaders’ emotions do play an important role too. As affect theory considers that emotions indicate how someone occupying a particular identity is responding to an event (Robinson and Smith-Lovin, 2006), leaders, as prototypical characters of the movement, frame and shape emotional responses towards events, which ultimately leads to action as shown in the injustice framework. Aligning individual and collective identity: the role of framing Borrowing on the constructionist concept of identity work, McAdam and Snow (2000) tried to capture various processes to align individual and collective identities. Identity work is “anything people do, individually or collectively, to give meaning to themselves or others” (Schwalbe and Mason-Schrock, 1996, p.115, cited in McAdam and Snow, 2000, p.47)). It can be split up in two parts. Identity convergence is the process undertaken when there is almost a perfect match between the individual’s identity and the movement identity, which implies an allowed but relative passivity of movement leaders. Identity convergence relies on two mechanisms, which are identity seeking – when individuals with a personality seek existing groups consistent with that identity – and identity appropriation – where the only task is to connect people sharing a similar identity but who don’t know each other yet. Identity construction is the active process of aligning personal and movement identity, of making individuals regard the movement as consistent with their self-conception and interests. It can be deconstructed in four processes (and see McAdam and Snow (2000) for examples):

- identity amplification: embellishing and strengthening identity that is congruent with the movement but however does not lead to participation yet;

- identity consolidation: blending past or current identity with new but previously foreign identity;

- identity extension: extending personal identity in order to make it overlap with movement’s identity;

- identity transformation: its results in a complete change of perspective, in the way things are seen as well as previous identity due to a kind of revelation.

4 For example, Taylor (2000) details that the development of women’s self-help movement was essentially done by media support, « warm » lines which allowed mothers in distress to have someone to talk to - preferably someone having had a similar experience – and conferences where mothers were invited to remember their personal experience, how they felt after the birth of their babies and how they got over it. Taylor particularly stressed the importance of emotions in the development of the movement.


- 12 -

Identity construction is operated through participation (see previous discussions) but also through framing, essentially based on discourses (for example explaining the movement to others, preparing press releases, having debates, etc.). Framing is an interactive process. McAdam and Snow (2000) hypothesize that the more politically radical, the more culturally foreign or the greedier the movement, the more important the identity construction processes compared to identity convergence. In the case of active, relatively successful and nonrevolutionary movement, McAdam and Snow (2000) expect typical identity construction processes to be linked with stages in the movement’s life cycle. Assumed that movements originally emerge from previously structured movements or organizations, identity appropriation is the most important process in the emergent stage because it connects people sharing identity but that did not necessarily know each other from past actions. When the movements transforms into a more structured and formal organization (institutionalization stage), special attention is given to identity amplification and extension processes, essentially by targeting specific groups and rallying them through the use of ideational frames. However, as the movement grows and enlarge, the risk of attraction people (and their personal interests) that could be at the origin of internal frictions becomes more important. If the organization reaches the stage of the general diffusion (which means an organization capable of proposing a project that will be massively supported), recruitment is not a problem anymore because people join the movement seeking identity. This often brings intramovement conflicts because of the impossibility of limiting access and maintaining coherence as well as a free-rider problem (Olson, 1965) in the sense that the collective identity has become a public good that can be consumed without any contribution by the consumers. Here again, even though it becomes increasingly difficult to maintain internal and ideological coherence, the role of the leader is crucial is providing vision, sense, and framing tactics. Lessons from identity Group identity is fostered by participation to collective action that itself fosters action preparedness that leads to group identification (Klandermans and de Weerd, 2000). Identification respond to needs for approval and certainty. Basic social identification process leads to accentuate intergroup differences while minimizing intragroup differences and therefore to choose a prototypical leader who both symbolizes group identity and shape the group’s emotional responses to events. Identification is operated through framing: every interactional situation is used as pretext to promote, discuss, redefine and construct collective identity. McAdam and Snow (2000) review the different identity construction processes that can be used by group members at different stages to the movement. There again, strong leadership must be carried out in order to face the potential internal conflicts that might arise because of the movement’s expansion.


- 13 -

CONCLUSION In this paper, we tried to identity various strategies and resources that could be mobilzed by activist organizations with the purpose to create sustainable collective action. Collective action is rooted into injustice, efficacy and identification to the threatened and active group. By digging into these three concepts, we highlighted both the need for them to be framed in a certain way and the necessity of participation to smaller and local actions in order to lead to collective action. First, we have shown that justice perception relies on individual and situational characteristics that lead to evaluate a situation, which provoke emotions that themselves lead to cognitive or behavioral reactions. We underlined the need of making sense – framing – the situational factors which requires time, information cross-referencing, context-setting and participation. Secondly, in order to make individuals believe in the efficacy of collective action, we focused on one of the motivation determinants – probability of success – that itself has to be framed through media, personal experiences and rooted in popular culture and values. Thirdly, McAdam and Snow (2000) stressed the importance of identity construction through framing in order to align personal and collective identity. Moreover, the difference between epidermal and sustainable collective action is that the former relies on extremely emotional and unframed reaction towards a particular situation whilst the latter is a constructed and framed phenomenon. This highlights the importance of participation of individuals to smaller proposed actions. Through these, individuals are allowed to take time to forge an opinion and to gain practical personal experience whilst activist organizations use these actions to unpack their framing arsenal. Considering this, activist organizations have several resources they can use:

(1) Producing information (by having their own media sources or by constantly reinterpreting official sources) allows activist organizations to frame the context they are embedded in;

(2) Experienced people are a valuable resource: they might be either outside the movement and providing personal experience – advices, past movements analysis – or framing the movement from inside through discourses, debates or participation to actions;

(3) Sustainable collective action needs time, both to construct the movement, to let people make sense out of a situation or to make them adopt the collective identity;

(4) Knowledge of local culture and values allows to make the purpose of the action resonate more deeply into individuals and thus anchor the action locally;

(5) Prototypical leadership strengthens the identity of the group: the leader is the incarnation of the values and must also develop emotional intelligence in order to shape the group’s emotions toward a particular situation;


- 14 -

(6) As stated previously, activist organizations must propose small actions, both to recruit or to give the opportunity to frame and explain their action than to provide experience to its members.

All these “tools” and imperatives are grouped in the model below.

FIGURE 4 – Roots, methods and resources leading to collective action


- 15 -

REFERENCES ATKINSON, J.W., An introduction to motivation, Princeton, NJ, Van Nostrand, 1964 BARSADE, S., and GIBSON, D., « Why does affect matter in organizations ? », Academy of Management, Perspectives , 2007, pp.36-59 BARSALOU, L.W., « Perceptual symbols systems », Behavorial and Brain Sciences, vol.22, 1999, p.577–660 CACIOPPO, J., and GARDNER, W., « Emotion », Annual Review of Psychology, vol.50, 1999, pp. 191-214 CARTWRIGHT, S., PAPPAS, C., « Emotional intelligence, its measurement and implications for the workplace”, International Journal of Management Reviews, vol.10, Issue 2 , 2008, pp. 149–171 CZARNIAWSKA, B., "Karl Weick: concepts, style and reflection", The Sociological Review, vol. 53, 2005, pp. 267–278 EPPLER, M.J., Managing Information Quality (2d Ed.), Springer, 2006 FOSTER, C., RUSBULT, C., “Injustice and Powerseeking”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 25, No. 7, 1999, pp.834-849 GAMSON, W. Talking Politics, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1992 GAMSON, W., « Constructing Social Protest », in DE HANK, J., KLANDERMANS, B., Social Movements and Culture, London, Routledge, 1995 GIROUX, N., "La démarche paradoxale de Karl E. Weick", in AUTISSIER, D., and BENSEBAA, F. (dir.), Les Défis du Sensemaking en Entreprise, Paris, Economica, 2006, pp. 25-39 HEGTVEDT, K., “Justice frameworks”, in BURKE, P.J. (Ed.), Contemporary Social Psychological Theories, Stanford, Standford University Press, 2006, pp. 46-69 HOGG, M., « Social identity theory », in BURKE, P. (Ed.), Contemporary Social Psychological Theories, Stanford, Stanford University Press, 2006, pp. 111-136 KLANDERMANS, B., GOSLINGA, S., “Media discourse, movement publicity, and the generation of collective action frames: theoretical and empirical exercises in meaning construction”, in McADAM, D., McCARTHY, J., ZALD, M., Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements, Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, 1996, pp. 312-337


- 16 -

KLANDERMANS, B., The social psychology of protest, Oxford, Basil Blackwell, 1997 KLANDERMANS, B., DE WEERD, M., « Group Identification and Political Protest », in STRYKER, S., OWENS, T.J., WHITE, R.W., Self, Identity, and Social Movements, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 2000, pp. 68-91 KLANDERMANS, B., “How group identification helps to overcome the dilemma of collective action”, The American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 45, Issue 5, Jan 2002, pp.887-900 LUPFER, M., WEEKS, K., DOAN, K., HOUSTON, D., "Folk conceptions of fairness and unfairness", European Journal of Social Psychology, n°30, 2000, pp.405-428 McADAM, D., « The framing function of movement tactics: Strategic dramaturgy in the American civil rights movement », in McADAM, D., McCARTHY, J., ZALD, M., Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements, Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, 1996, pp. 338-355 McADAM, D., SNOW, D., “Identity Work Processes in the Context of Social Movements: Clarifying the Identity/Movement Nexus”, in STRYKER, S., OWENS, T.J., WHITE, R.W., Self, Identity, and Social Movements, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 2000, pp. 41-67 MELUCCI, A., Challenging Codes : Collective Action in the Information Age, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1996 MUCCHIELLI, R., La dynamique des groupes (17ème edition), Paris, ESF Editions, 2004 OLSON, M., The Logic of Collective Action, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1965 ROBINSON, D.T., SMITH-LOVIN, L., « Affect control theory », in BURKE, P. (Ed.), Contemporary Social Psychological Theories, Stanford, Stanford University Press, 2006, pp.137-164 SALOVEY, P., and MAYER, J.D., « Emotional intelligence », Imagination, Cognition and Personality, vol. 9, 1990, pp.185-211 SCHWALBE, M., MASON-SCHROCK, D, « Identity Work as Group Process », Advances in Group Processes, vol.13, 1996, pp.113-147 SNOW, D. and BENFORD, R., « Ideology, Frame Resonance, and Participant Mobilization », in KLANDERMANS, B., KRIESI, H. and TARROW, S. (Eds), From Structure to Action : Social Movement Participation Accross Cultures, Greenwich, JAI Press, 1988, pp.197-217 TAYLOR, V. “Emotions and Identity of Women’s Self-Help Movements”, in STRYKER, S., OWENS, T.J., WHITE, R.W., Self, Identity, and Social Movements, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 2000, pp. 271-299


- 17 -

TOLMAN, E.C., Purposive behavior in animals and men, New York, Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1932 VIDAILLET, B. "Comment l'envie déclenche des processus de sensemaking", in AUTISSIER, D., and BENSEBAA, F. (dir.), Les Défis du Sensemaking en Entreprise, Paris, Economica, 2006, pp. 111-120 WALSH, J.P., “Managerial and Organizational Cognition: Notes from a Trip Down Memory Lane”, Organization Science, vol. 6, No. 3., 1995, pp. 280-321 WEICK, K.E., "Sources of order in underorganized systems: Themes in recent organizational theory", in LINCOLN, Y. (Ed.), Organizational theory and inquiry, Beverly Hills, Sage Publications, 1985 WEICK, K.E., MEADER, D.K., « Sense making and group support systems », in JESSUP, L.M., VALECICH, J.S., (Eds.), Group support systems: new perspectives, New York, Macmillan, 1993, pp. 230-252 WEICK, K., « The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The Mann Gulch disaster”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Dec 1993, vol. 38, Iss. 4, pp. 628-645 WEICK, K.E., Sensemaking in Organizations, Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications, 1995 WEICK, K.E., “Enactment and the Boundaryless Career: Organizing as we work” (1996), republished in, WEICK, K.E., Making Sense of the Organization, Malden, Blackwell Publishing, 2001, pp. 207-223 WEINER, Bernard, Human motivation – Metaphors, Theories and Research, London, Sage Publications, 1992 WRANIK, T., FELDMAN BARRETT, L., and SALOVEY, P., « Intelligent emotion regulation: Is knowledge power? », in GROSS, J. (Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation, New York, Guilford, 2007, pp. 393-407 ZALD, M., “Culture, Ideology and Strategic framing”, in McADAM, D., McCARTHY, J., ZALD, M., Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements, Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, 1996, pp. 261-274

Determinants of collective action and strategies to undertake for activist organizations

Documents

Transcript of Determinants of collective action and strategies to undertake for activist organizations