Outcomes of collective action: The impact of normativeness of action and procedural injustice.

Jessica Beaton (2010). Outcomes of collective action: The impact of normativeness of action and procedural injustice. Honours Thesis, School of Psychology, The University of Queensland.

       
Attached Files (Some files may be inaccessible until you login with your UQ eSpace credentials)
Name Description MIMEType Size Downloads
JessicaBeatonPSYC4071Thesis2010.pdf Copy of Jessica Beaton's BPsySc Honours Thesis application/pdf 657.52KB 7
Author Jessica Beaton
Thesis Title Outcomes of collective action: The impact of normativeness of action and procedural injustice.
School, Centre or Institute School of Psychology
Institution The University of Queensland
Publication date 2010
Thesis type Honours Thesis
Supervisor Louis, Winnifred
Total pages 125
Abstract/Summary Collective action is tool which is widely used within social movements to create change. In particular, it is used by unions to effect policy change and change public opinion. Four hundred and two union members completed an online experiment, examining the effect of normativeness of union collective action (normative vs non-normative) and a claim of procedural injustice (present vs absent) on the success of collective action. After reading a scenario describing a culture of workplace bullying and varying types of collective action (strike, day of action, petition, and rally), union members reported their support for the union on three dependent measures: support for the policies advocated by the union, attitudes towards the workers in the scenario, and hypothetical willingness to engage in future action. It was hypothesised that participants who read about more normative collective action would be more supportive of the union on the three dependent variables, and that if participants read about a procedural injustice claim by the union, they would also be more supportive. Making a claim of procedural injustice was also predicted to increase participants' responsiveness to the type of action. None of these three hypotheses were supported. In addition, it was hypothesized that union members who identified more strongly with the union would be especially responsive to the normativeness of action and presence of a procedural injustice claim, but these hypotheses were also disconfirmed. Subsequent correlational analyses showed that perceived procedural injustice, more normative action, and stronger union identification were associated with more support for the union across the dependent measures, but no consistent interactions were observed. Limitations and future directions for research are discussed.

 
Citation counts: Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Wed, 06 Apr 2011, 10:10:25 EST by Lucy O'Brien on behalf of School of Psychology