The Compatibility of Equality and Harmony In Social Change: Joint Collective Action Reduces Intergroup Conflict and Polarisation Between Gender Groups

Authors:

Abstract: Background Over the past decade, East Asian societies have witnessed a growing polarisation of public opinions regarding gender equality. Such divisions have been accompanied by a rise of hatred for women and the stigmatisation of feminism, leading to increasing conflicts between gender groups. Such intractable conflicts pose challenges to social cohesion and progressive social change. In the current research, we examined how different forms of pro-women collective actions would influence intergroup conflict and polarisation, aiming to shed light on potential avenues for fostering understanding and collaboration amidst these societal divisions. Research in social and political psychology has recognised disadvantaged group members’ collective action as a way to promote social change. However, it is documented that such collective actions might harm social cohesion by fuelling intergroup tensions. In the current research, we proposed joint collective action (also referred to as allyship or solidarity-based collective action in the literature), in which both advantaged and disadvantaged group members participate, as a potential approach to addressing such a conflict between social change and social cohesion. In the context of gender relations in China, we predicted joint collective action by both men and women (in comparison to actions solely involving women or inaction) to mitigate conflict and polarisation between men and women. Methods In five experimental studies (three preregistered; total N = 1,685 Chinese participants), we manipulated collective action (men and women’s joint action vs. women’s action alone vs. inaction) by presenting a hypothetical collective action scenario (Study 1) or an apparently real and ongoing collective action (Studies 1b–3b) to participants. Studies 1a–2 focused on men’s (i.e., the advantaged group’s) reactions to these forms of collective actions in support of women (i.e., the disadvantaged group), while Study 3a–3b included both men and women as participants. (Reduced) intergroup conflict was assessed through men’s support for concessions (Studies 1a–2), solidarity-based action intentions (Studies 1b and 2), intergroup attitudes (Study 2), and support for the collective action itself (Study 2) in Studies 1a–2, while intergroup polarisation was measured in terms of affective polarisation (i.e., outgroup feelings, outgroup trait evaluation, and outgroup identity) and perceived societal polarisation (i.e., perceived opinion divergence and perceived intergroup commonality) in Studies 3a–3b. Furthermore, Studies 1b and 2 explored the mediating role of perceptions regarding social consensus in the relationship between collective action and intergroup conflict, while Study 2 additionally probed into group efficacy and image damage as potential mediators. Results Studies 1a–2 focused on (the reduction of) intergroup conflict between men and women. Across studies, results revealed a facilitative impact of joint collective action (compared to inaction) on support for concessions, intentions to engage in solidarity-based actions (marginally significant in Study 2), and positive intergroup attitudes among men. These effects were mediated by perceptions of a greater social consensus. Additionally, in Study 2, we found joint (vs. women’s alone) collective action gained more support from men because it was believed to be more efficacious in provoking change and alleviated men’s concerns about damaging their group image. In terms of intergroup polarisation, Studies 3a–3b consistently suggested that joint collective action (compared to the other two conditions) reduced both affective polarisation and perceived societal polarisation between gender groups. To identify the most reliable pattern of effects and estimate the overall effect sizes, we conducted an internal meta-analysis. The meta-analytic results based on the data of Studies 1a–2 showed that men and women’s joint collective action increased support for concessions and solidarity-based action intentions compared to women’s collective action alone (concession: d = 0.22, CI [0.07, 0.38], p = .005; solidarity: d = 0.23, CI [0.05, 0.40], p = .010) and inaction (concession: d = 0.40, CI [0.25, 0.56], p < .001; solidarity: d = 0.39, CI [0.10, 0.68], p = .008). Moreover, based on the data of Studies 3a–3b, the meta-analysis suggested that joint collective action decreased both affective polarisation and perceived societal polarisation compared to women’s collective action (affective: d = 0.51, CI [0.40, 0.63], p < .001; perceived: d = 1.15, CI [0.92, 2.39], p < .001) and inaction (affective: d = 0.36, CI [0.20, 0.53], p < .001; perceived: d = 0.64, CI [0.50, 0.79], p < .001). Discussion In short, across five experiments, we found joint collective action by both men and women, as compared to women’s action alone and inaction, reduced intergroup conflict and polarisation between gender groups. The present research provides insights into the management of intergroup conflicts in social changes, deepening our understanding of the underlying psychological processes from a non-WEIRD perspective. Prior research suggests that advantaged group members often feel their socioeconomic status and group identity are threatened during rapid changes in power relations between historically advantaged or disadvantaged groups. Such feelings of being threatened can lead to these social groups to be more uncooperative and divisive, thus challenging social cohesion. Our findings underscore the compatibility of social change and harmonious intergroup relations through joint collective action, thereby challenging prevailing notions about the negative relationship between collective action and social cohesion. In this vein, our research is able to provide guidance for social activists, community leaders, and policymakers on effective strategies to address societal divisions during the promotion of social change.

Track: DEI

Keywords: Joint collective action, intergroup conflict, polarisation, social change