Uysal Mete Sefa, Drury John, Acar Yasemin Gülsüm
Department of Psychology, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
School of Psychology, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK.
Br J Soc Psychol. 2025 Jul;64(3):e12891. doi: 10.1111/bjso.12891.
Confrontational collective actions are neither uncontrolled outbursts of initially pacifist resistance nor mere reactions to helplessness and lack of viable political options. Instead, they serve strategically determined purposes within the group, making them perceived as both effective and legitimate. Regardless of whether it is more or less confrontational, examining the role of efficacy and legitimacy of actions that are committed to achieving group goals is crucial for understanding the appeal of collective action strategies. We examined the role of political trust and protest repression in predicting the legitimacy of protest violence and the perceived efficacy of confrontational and non-confrontational collective actions and, in turn, their role in confrontational collective action. Across three correlational studies conducted in Germany, Turkey and the United Kingdom (N = 3833), the legitimacy of protest violence and the efficacy of confrontational tactics were core determinants of confrontational collective actions. While low political trust did not directly predict confrontational action, it predicted heightened protest repression and the legitimacy of protest violence. Our findings challenge the nothing-to-lose hypothesis by demonstrating that confrontational actions are not driven by the low efficacy of non-confrontational strategies or low political trust, and people may perceive both confrontational and non-confrontational actions as similarly effective.
对抗性集体行动既不是最初和平抵抗的失控爆发，也不是对无助和缺乏可行政治选择的单纯反应。相反，它们在群体中服务于战略确定的目的，使它们被视为既有效又合法。无论其对抗性程度或多或少，审视致力于实现群体目标的行动的效力和合法性的作用，对于理解集体行动策略的吸引力至关重要。我们研究了政治信任和抗议镇压在预测抗议暴力的合法性以及对抗性和非对抗性集体行动的感知效力方面的作用，进而研究它们在对抗性集体行动中的作用。在德国、土耳其和英国进行的三项相关性研究（N = 3833）中，抗议暴力的合法性和对抗性策略的效力是对抗性集体行动的核心决定因素。虽然低政治信任并没有直接预测对抗性行动，但它预测了抗议镇压的加剧和抗议暴力的合法性。我们的研究结果通过表明对抗性行动不是由非对抗性策略效力低下或政治信任度低所驱动，且人们可能认为对抗性和非对抗性行动同样有效，从而挑战了“一无所有”假说。
