Passini Stefano
Department of Education Studies, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Eur J Psychol. 2019 Dec 19;15(4):671-688. doi: 10.5964/ejop.v15i4.1693. eCollection 2019 Dec.
The issue of the motivations behind the decision as to whether or not to join protest actions has been investigated by many scholars. In particular, recent studies have considered violations of one's own moral convictions and identification with the protest group as the main predictors of collective actions. The present research will focus on the three orientations to the political system identified by Kelman and Hamilton (1989), which consider distinct reasons behind the attachment to the political system and explain the motivations behind supporting or opposing the institutions. The aim is to examine whether these three orientations have an effect on collective action (through moral convictions, politicized identification, anger, and efficacy) considering social protests both against and in favor of the status quo. Specifically, the political orientations should explain why individuals hold a given attitude (positive or negative) towards a policy position, hold it with moral conviction, and decide to join a protest action. The results of three studies confirm the relevance of considering political orientations. Depending on the aim of the protest, each political orientation has a distinct effect on collective action.
许多学者都研究了决定是否参与抗议行动背后的动机问题。特别是，最近的研究将违背自己的道德信念以及与抗议团体的认同视为集体行动的主要预测因素。本研究将聚焦于凯尔曼和汉密尔顿（1989年）所确定的对政治体系的三种取向，这些取向考虑了对政治体系产生依恋背后的不同原因，并解释了支持或反对这些机构背后的动机。目的是考察这三种取向是否通过道德信念、政治化认同、愤怒和效能对集体行动产生影响，同时考虑反对和支持现状的社会抗议活动。具体而言，这些政治取向应解释个人为何对一项政策立场持有特定态度（积极或消极），为何带着道德信念持有该态度，以及为何决定参与抗议行动。三项研究的结果证实了考虑政治取向的相关性。根据抗议的目的，每种政治取向对集体行动都有不同的影响。
