Understanding the psychology of collective behaviors and social movements is essential, as they are frequent and have great repercussions. Collective outbursts of protest and large mobilizations have shaken Europe, Asia and Latin America - before and during the pandemic period. It is estimated that the nearly 5,000 revolts that have occurred in 158 countries during the pandemic, demanding recognition of economic and social rights, have shown the social vulnerability to the pandemic and the underlying social inequities in many countries, also having a negative economic impact.
However, the impact of mass movements on social change is important and often positive. General suffrage, including women's suffrage, the end of racist regimes, laws and practices, as well as addressing climate change, are changes resulting from large social movements. A review of protests around the world during the 21st century found that almost 4 out of 10 movements achieved some kind of success, mostly on political, legal and social rights issues, and to a lesser extent economic ones (Ortiz et al, 2022).
Why do people mobilize? Different explanations have been put forward why as to why people engage in protests and collective behaviors and support social movements. Partial explanations to the question: why do people mobilize? have been developed from the 1970s to the present day, as follows:
1. Relative group deprivation: People who perceived that their social group (not they individually) received less than they expected or believed they deserved, relative to other groups, were those who showed the greatest tendency to social mobilization (Allen, 1970; Smith, H.J. et al. 2012).
2. Availability of resources and the presence of political opportunities: Sociologists and political scientists in the 1970s and 1980s proposed new keys to social mobilization: the availability of resources and the presence of political opportunities. In fact, groups with more resources and opportunities are more likely to mobilize (Tilly, 1978; McCarthy & Zald, 1977).
3. Expected value and rational logic: Subjectively, people mobilize because they value the collective objective and expect the behavior to succeed, because they expect collective and, to a lesser extent, social benefits (their environment will approve of them). The resource perspective for mobilization proposes that participation in collective movements is a rational decision-making process whereby people weigh the costs and benefits of their participation (Klandermans, 1984: 1997).
4. Collective political efficacy: Because they believe, they are effective or capable of controlling the environment and distrust institutions. In addition, they perceive that their group is collectively effective and feel hopeful that things will change. For the perception of the possibility of change to take hold, people must perceive that the group is capable of uniting and that the political context will be receptive to their group's demands.
4. Social identity: Because they share and create a social identity oriented towards political action. It became clear in research on social movements that the instrumental logics of expectations and those of efficiency are not a sufficient reason to participate in protests.
Increasingly, the importance of collective identity as a factor stimulating participation in protest has been highlighted. Sociologists argue that the generation of a collective identity is crucial for a movement to emerge (Van Zommeren et al, 2008).
5. Emotions and rituals: Because there are emotions that fuel social movements. Social movement dynamics are impossible without considering the role of individual and collective emotions. People mobilize because they share the narrative or a view of their group's
situation as unjust and feel anger, just as they view their group as efficacious and feel hope (Alvarez et al, 2015; Paez et al, 2013). They also perceive that people in their social group share anger and hope - they notice an emotional climate favorable to mobilizing (Rime et al, 2017; Sabucedo et al, 2017). Finally, they feel moral outrage and that they have a moral obligation to mobilize (Sabucedo et al, 2018).
This collection seeks to bring together collaborations that study different types of collective behaviors and social movements. Both empirical studies and systematic reviews (for instance in explanation of populist social movements) and/or meta-analyses are welcome, as long as they advance the explanation of the social and political psychology of social movements.
Understanding the psychology of collective behaviors and social movements is essential, as they are frequent and have great repercussions. Collective outbursts of protest and large mobilizations have shaken Europe, Asia and Latin America - before and during the pandemic period. It is estimated that the nearly 5,000 revolts that have occurred in 158 countries during the pandemic, demanding recognition of economic and social rights, have shown the social vulnerability to the pandemic and the underlying social inequities in many countries, also having a negative economic impact.
However, the impact of mass movements on social change is important and often positive. General suffrage, including women's suffrage, the end of racist regimes, laws and practices, as well as addressing climate change, are changes resulting from large social movements. A review of protests around the world during the 21st century found that almost 4 out of 10 movements achieved some kind of success, mostly on political, legal and social rights issues, and to a lesser extent economic ones (Ortiz et al, 2022).
Why do people mobilize? Different explanations have been put forward why as to why people engage in protests and collective behaviors and support social movements. Partial explanations to the question: why do people mobilize? have been developed from the 1970s to the present day, as follows:
1. Relative group deprivation: People who perceived that their social group (not they individually) received less than they expected or believed they deserved, relative to other groups, were those who showed the greatest tendency to social mobilization (Allen, 1970; Smith, H.J. et al. 2012).
2. Availability of resources and the presence of political opportunities: Sociologists and political scientists in the 1970s and 1980s proposed new keys to social mobilization: the availability of resources and the presence of political opportunities. In fact, groups with more resources and opportunities are more likely to mobilize (Tilly, 1978; McCarthy & Zald, 1977).
3. Expected value and rational logic: Subjectively, people mobilize because they value the collective objective and expect the behavior to succeed, because they expect collective and, to a lesser extent, social benefits (their environment will approve of them). The resource perspective for mobilization proposes that participation in collective movements is a rational decision-making process whereby people weigh the costs and benefits of their participation (Klandermans, 1984: 1997).
4. Collective political efficacy: Because they believe, they are effective or capable of controlling the environment and distrust institutions. In addition, they perceive that their group is collectively effective and feel hopeful that things will change. For the perception of the possibility of change to take hold, people must perceive that the group is capable of uniting and that the political context will be receptive to their group's demands.
4. Social identity: Because they share and create a social identity oriented towards political action. It became clear in research on social movements that the instrumental logics of expectations and those of efficiency are not a sufficient reason to participate in protests.
Increasingly, the importance of collective identity as a factor stimulating participation in protest has been highlighted. Sociologists argue that the generation of a collective identity is crucial for a movement to emerge (Van Zommeren et al, 2008).
5. Emotions and rituals: Because there are emotions that fuel social movements. Social movement dynamics are impossible without considering the role of individual and collective emotions. People mobilize because they share the narrative or a view of their group's
situation as unjust and feel anger, just as they view their group as efficacious and feel hope (Alvarez et al, 2015; Paez et al, 2013). They also perceive that people in their social group share anger and hope - they notice an emotional climate favorable to mobilizing (Rime et al, 2017; Sabucedo et al, 2017). Finally, they feel moral outrage and that they have a moral obligation to mobilize (Sabucedo et al, 2018).
This collection seeks to bring together collaborations that study different types of collective behaviors and social movements. Both empirical studies and systematic reviews (for instance in explanation of populist social movements) and/or meta-analyses are welcome, as long as they advance the explanation of the social and political psychology of social movements.
