Despite a longstanding strong identification with an own Catalan culture and costumes, the movement for Catalan independence only started to gain strength in 2012 (Martí, 2013; Qvortrup, 2021) and reached its zenith years after, in the month of October 2017. Then, after an independence referendum that was previously declared illegal by the Spanish Constitutional Court with the support of the Venice Commission, Catalonia briefly declared its independence on October 27. The declaration was immediately suspended and never took full effect. However, these events had a tremendous impact that still to this day divides the Catalan Society.

Secessionist struggles are among the political confrontations with a greater potential impact for the population. Secessions can impact the economy of both the region that contends for independence and the host state (Thomas, 2018). It can also affect future international relations (Qvortrup, 2014; Reuters, 2017). Even more impactfully, disputes for independence can generate intergroup conflict as society becomes rent asunder by two incompatible governing models. This could ultimately lead to violence, as shown by the relatively recent example of the Irish Troubles (Bell, 1993). The conditions as well as the political strategies and narratives that characterize the emergence and success of secessionist movements have been extensively analysed (Hechter, 1992; Qvortrup, 2014; Cetrà and Liñeira, 2018; Arrighi, 2019; Sabucedo et al., 2020). Yet, despite the crucial role collective action has in this scenario, research on psychosocial collective action motives in the context of a secessionist struggle is scarce (for a notable exception, see Abrams et al., 2020).

This study examined the motivations for participation in collective action in favour and against independence and the 1-O referendum in the days before the voting. It is important to clarify that the referendum will be considered as a protest in order to analyse the motivations leading to participation. We consider this to be the best approach as the circumstances surrounding the referendum disqualify it as a regular voting for several reasons: the referendum was declared illegal by the Constitutional Court, the Venice Commission did not endorse the referendum and the control of the voting process (electoral registers, voter identification and counting of votes) was performed by the organizers rather than an impartial body (BBC, 2017a; Gómez, 2017). Moreover, the will of the Spanish Central Government was to not only ignore the result but also avoid the voting taking place at all, as police was deployed to try to stop the event (Mateo, 2017; Qvortrup, 2021). This scenario would cast, at a minimum, serious doubts among voters that the result of the plebiscite would materialize, and would undoubtedly discouraged the participation of opponents of independence (Arrighi, 2019).

Aside from examining the motivations leading to participation in collective action in a secessionist context, this research represents an excellent opportunity to compare such motivations for two groups with opposed goals: one of them system challenging and the other system supportive. In this sense, the pro-independence group represents a system-challenging position as they wish to change the current configuration of the Spanish state, while the unionist group could be labelled as system supportive. Not only the pro-independence group wishes to achieve a systemic change, but also several authors have argued that they were able to re-channel the previous system-challenging discourse that arouse after the 2008 economic crisis to build a case against the Spanish state and in favour of Catalan independence (Sabucedo et al., 2017; Miley, 2019). However, it is important to notice that the pro-independence group was in various respects privileged inside Catalonia. First and foremost, the Catalan Government had been pro-independence for several years at the time of research (Qvortrup, 2021) but research also shows that the pro-independence camp in Catalonia is in overall terms of a higher socioeconomic status (Miley and Garvía, 2019; Oller et al., 2020). Ultimately, this asymmetry in the situation and aims of both groups should imply that different motivations influence action in a distinct fashion (Jost et al., 2017). Previous to the 1-O referendum, only the system-challenging group had numerously and repeatedly demonstrated (Burgen, 2012; Kassam, 2015; Reuters, 2016; Minder, 2017). On the other hand, those against independence rarely engaged in collective action. A circumstance that changed only after the 1-O referendum, when there was a surge of anti-independence mobilizations (BBC, 2017b).

A first preliminary analysis of the data was performed by comparing the means of both groups in all introduced variables. A factor ANOVA was performed using stance on independence as the factor variable (see Table 1). Scores for moral obligation, positive emotional climate and negative emotions towards the rival government were all lower for the anti-independence group, as well as intention to participate in both collective action and the referendum. These results are congruent with the greater commitment and emotional activation that an action against the status quo, such as independence, requires.

The present paper sought to test the psychosocial motivations leading to collective action participation in a secessionist context. To achieve this, data were gathered in Catalonia in the days prior to the 1-O independence referendum in 2017. The first contribution of the present work is that the motivations hereby examined remain relevant in a context of secessionist struggle, replicating findings from previous research that used these motives in other contexts (van Zomeren et al., 2008; Sabucedo et al., 2018). This represents a novel contribution as some of the collective action frames have been adapted for the specific case of a secessionist struggle.

Yet, the main objective of this research was to test whether these two groups differed in their motivation to participate. This was indeed the case, as the motivational setting between groups in favour and against independence differed: while all motivations were significant predictors for those in favour of independence, some of them failed to drive those against secession to participate. As hypothesized, the perception of a positive emotional climate revolving around hope in the future did predict collective action for the pro-independence group, but not the anti-independence group. These positive emotions may be the result of having the Catalan regional government, and all its resources in favour of the independence cause and the perception that the Spanish Government would end up giving in in that confrontation (Sabucedo et al., 2017). On the contrary, non-independence people were more concerned about the tension that was being experienced and the one that could come. These results dovetail previous findings about the impact of positive affect in driving political participation in a secessionist context (Sabucedo et al., 2017; Oller et al., 2019b).

More surprising is the fact that motivational schemas also differ on the significance of negative emotions towards the adversary, as the anti-independence group is not motivated by negative emotions against the Catalan Government. A potential explanation for this finding may be that the effect of group-based anger is moderated by a perception of threat to the status quo. Therefore, anger will not be sufficient to promote system-supportive collective action by a system-supportive group if that group perceives the acts of the rival group as non-threatening to the current status quo. Moreover, the overall level of anger against the Catalan Government shown by unionists (M = 3.99, SE = 1.98) was much lower (and only slightly over the midpoint of the scale) than the anger level that the pro-independence camp showed against the Spanish Government (M = 5.28, SE = 1.55). Both the argument and the findings are coherent with the role of anger as an emotional response to threat (Neuman et al., 2007; Neuberg et al., 2011; Marcus et al., 2019). Also endorsing the thesis hereby posited, recent research has shown that groups perceiving threats against them feel more anger, which leads them to a higher willingness to participate (Gutierrez et al., 2019). The capital role of threat has also been attested in qualitative research, where it has been defined by activists as a ‘pre-condition to get up from the couch’ (Kleres and Wettergren, 2017, p. 512). Also supporting this argument is the fact that the first massive demonstration against independence took place only after the 1-O referendum and the brief declaration of independence that followed (BBC, 2017b) when the threat would seem more obvious.

The final difference found in the motivational configuration of the groups refers to the identity variable. Pro-independence collective action is predicted positively by national Catalan identity and negatively national Spanish identity. On the other hand, participation among those against independence is only predicted – positively – by identification with Spain. This supports the hypothesis that action supportive of secession will be deterred by a dual-identification process, as the success of such actions will be detrimental for one of the two identities (González and Brown, 2006).

Finally, moral obligation did predict collective action for both groups. This finding highlights the importance of moral obligation as a predictor of collective action (Vilas and Sabucedo, 2012; Sabucedo et al., 2019), and it also supports the idea that moral concerns equally motivate behaviour regardless of specific beliefs (Schein and Gray, 2017; Dono et al., 2018).

Regarding participation in the referendum, the results did not support our hypotheses in what refers to the pro-independence group. Participation on the referendum was conceived as a collective action and thus was anticipated to be explained by the same variables that should predict intention to participate. However, only identification with Catalonia significantly predicted voting for pro-independence people. This is caused by a ceiling effect that may respond to the perception of the referendum as a ‘once in a lifetime’ opportunity. Another contributing factor may be the recent example of Scotland, where the victory of the permanence in the United Kingdom was then argued to settle the secessionist conundrum.

The results concerning participation in the referendum by anti-independence group partially supported our hypothesis. This is so as participation was predicted by negative emotions towards the Spanish Government and by low negative emotions towards the Catalan Government, but also – unexpectedly – by low identification with Spain. We believe this profile reflects an individual that is discontent with the treatment that the Spanish Government has given to the situation. Therefore, participating in the referendum is conceived as a solidary symbolic act to claim for a different management of the situation. Results also manifest that the voting was not framed as a binding referendum for the anti-independence group, as participation was not driven by a will to defend the current state configuration (i.e. moral obligation). The findings about the motivation of anti-independence people to participate in the referendum also replicate the role of negative emotions as an important motive for solidarity-based collective action (Saab et al., 2015).

In the present work, some of the most empirically supported motivations for participating in collective action (van Zomeren et al., 2008; Sabucedo et al., 2019) have been successfully adapted to compare the potential engagement of two groups in secession-related collective action. Particularly, the motivations of identity, efficacy and injustice have been conceptualized in a different fashion than usual, seeking to guarantee an optimum comparison between the groups. For the most part, the results support the hypotheses formulated, including those regarding the different motivations for collective action participation in each group. Secessionist struggles provide a paradigmatic case of two groups with opposite goals, where one of them wants to maintain the status quo, while the other seeks to challenge it.

Despite political debates around most issues confront system-challenging and system-supportive positions, only recently scholars have called for an examination of this circumstance (Jost et al., 2017). The approach by Jost et al. (2017) describes how system justification influences the motives that lead system-supportive and system-challenging members to collective action participation and has recently gathered empirical support (Osborne et al., 2019). The present research extends these findings as it shows that, under certain circumstances, some motivations may work only for one of such groups, as it is the case of affective injustice and positive emotions in this research. It seems that dual-identity groups that support the current juridic configuration of the state may need to perceive an evident threat to either that configuration or their social identity for their grievances to drive them into action. Besides, the fact that they are already in the desired position nullifies the motivating effect that positive emotions may have. The only motivations that remain significant predictors for the system-supportive group are identity and moral obligation. Hence, individuals highly committed with their group and those driven by moral concern seem disposed to participate in any circumstance. This supports the argument of both these motivations being specially important driving factors for participation (van Zomeren et al., 2008; Sabucedo et al., 2018).

Contentions for secession have great potential implications for society and pose the risk of stagnating and even becoming violent conflicts. Thus, a great deal of attention needs to be directed at seeking a satisfactory and peaceful solution to these conundrums. Understanding how and why collective action motivations differ between the groups in contention is a key part of reaching such a solution, but it should also be applied to other political controversies. Politics usually confront those who seek change against those who resist it: neglecting how these opposing stances shape their motivation to participate in collective action is bound to produce imprecise knowledge.

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by Bioethics Committee of the University of Santiago de Compostela. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

All authors listed have made a substantial, direct and intellectual contribution to the work, and approved it for publication.

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.