Social Perceptions Assignment | Get Paper Help

Research article
The ironic impact of activists: Negative stereotypes reduce social change influence
NADIA Y. BASHIR1*, PENELOPE LOCKWOOD1, ALISON L. CHASTEEN1, DANIEL NADOLNY2 AND
INDRA NOYES1
1Department of Psychology, University of Toronto, Canada; 2University of Waterloo, Canada
Abstract
Despite recognizing the need for social change in areas such as social equality and environmental protection, individuals often
avoid supporting such change. Researchers have previously attempted to understand this resistance to social change by
examining individuals’ perceptions of social issues and social change. We instead examined the possibility that individuals resist
social change because they have negative stereotypes of activists, the agents of social change. Participants had negative
stereotypes of activists (feminists and environmentalists), regardless of the domain of activism, viewing them as eccentric and
militant. Furthermore, these stereotypes reduced participants’ willingness to affiliate with ‘typical’ activists and, ultimately, to
adopt the behaviours that these activists promoted. These results indicate that stereotypes and person perception processes more
generally play a key role in creating resistance to social change. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
In 1964, the U.S. Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act,
outlawing racial and gender discrimination (National Archives
and Records Administration, 2011). More recently, in 2010,
President Obama repealed the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy,
allowing openly gay Americans to serve in the military
(The Library of Congress, 2011). These landmark events
occurred only after activists spent many years actively
challenging the status quo (House Committee on Armed
Services, 1993; National Archives and Records Administration,
2011), illustrating that long periods of slow progress
typically precede social change. Such slow progress is at odds
with research indicating that many individuals believe that it is
important, socially desirable and moral to address social
justice concerns (Beattie, 2010; Nelson et al., 2008). If
individuals believe that social change is crucial and socially
valued, they should generally be supportive of and responsive
to the activists who advocate it. Yet although activists
enthusiastically strive to address social justice concerns and
are at times successful in promoting social change (e.g. Czopp,
Monteith, & Mark, 2006), they often encounter substantial
resistance from the public (Nelson et al., 2008; Superson &
Cudd, 2002). Ironically, it may be this enthusiasm with which
activists promote social change that undermines their impact:
Rather than admiring their determination to address critical
social issues, individuals may associate activists with negative
stereotypes, viewing them as militant and eccentric. Accordingly,
individuals may avoid affiliating with activists and
disregard their pro-change initiatives. We examined this directly.
To date, researchers have attempted to understand resistance
to social change by examining individuals’ perceptions of social
issues, attitudes towards social change and personality traits.
Researchers have assessed, for example, whether individuals
avoid supporting social change because they deny or fail to
perceive that a social issue or injustice exists (Gifford, 2011),
perceive the issue to be personally irrelevant (Hodson &
Esses, 2002) or believe that the status quo is acceptable (Morton,
Postmes, Haslam, & Hornsey, 2009). In addition, researchers
have examined whether individuals resist social change because
they believe that it threatens positive aspects of the status quo
(Kay & Friesen, 2011) or conflicts with their goals and beliefs
(Feygina, Jost, & Goldsmith, 2010; Zárate, Shaw, Marquez, &
Biagas, 2012). Finally, several studies have examined the
personal characteristics that are associated with reduced support
for social change, such as political conservatism and authoritarianism
(Agronick & Duncan, 1998; van Zomeren, Postmes, &
Spears, 2008). Although this past research provides important
insight into the theoretical basis for resistance to social change,
one key element has been largely ignored: individuals’
perceptions of the people who strive to achieve this change, the
activists themselves.
Indeed, even when individuals have perceptions of social
issues and social change that are conducive to change (e.g.
favourable perceptions of feminism), they are often still reluctant
to identify with those who advocate this change (e.g. feminists;
Aronson, 2003). Furthermore, individuals view activists in a
variety of domains negatively: Feminists, for example, are typically
viewed unfavourably as aggressive, unconventional and
unpleasant people (Berryman-Fink & Verderber, 1985; Twenge
& Zucker, 1991). Similarly, portrayals of environmentalists and
gay rights activists in government reports and sociological texts
suggest that individuals view these activists as eccentric and
militant (Brown, 2007; Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI],
*Correspondence to: Nadia Y. Bashir, Department of Psychology, University of Toronto, 100 St. George Street, Toronto, ON M5S 3G3, Canada.
E-mail: nadia.bashir@mail.utoronto.ca
European Journal of Social Psychology, Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 43, 614–626 (2013)
Published online 16 September 2013 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.1983
Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Received 22 September 2012, Accepted 20 August 2013
2001). Because activists, by definition, strive to effect change by
publicly criticizing mainstream practices, they may be seen as
hostile, unconventional and unpleasant. This tendency to
associate activists with negative stereotypes may ultimately
reduce individuals’ willingness to affiliate with activists and
adopt the pro-change behaviours that activists espouse.
Specifically, because individuals strive to maintain a
positive self-concept (Sedikides & Gregg, 2008) and consider
their group memberships to be important components of their
self-concepts, individuals typically desire membership in only
those groups that they view positively (Tajfel & Turner, 1979).
If individuals associate activists with negative stereotypes,
therefore, they may avoid affiliating with activists who
conform to these stereotypes (i.e. ‘typical’ activists), which
may in turn reduce the likelihood that individuals will adopt
behaviours that are characteristic of ‘typical’ activists. That
is, because individuals have a strong need to belong and
experience social acceptance (Baumeister & Leary, 1995),
they may avoid engaging in behaviours that would characterize
them as individuals with whom it may seem unpleasant
to affiliate. Given that individuals who are merely associated
with stigmatized others can face prejudice and social rejection
(Pryor, Reeder, & Monroe, 2012), individuals may fear that
they too will be stigmatized and rejected by others if they
affiliate with ‘typical’ activists and perform behaviours that
are characteristic of such activists. Indeed, consistent with balance
theory (Heider, 1958), individuals may in part agree with
social change ideologies but nevertheless avoid adopting
pro-change behaviours because the ‘typical’ activists who
advocate these behaviours seem dislikeable. By rejecting
pro-change advocacy, individuals can distance themselves
from individuals who are generally viewed negatively by society.
In support of this possibility, evidence indicates that individuals
are less likely to adopt the opinions of stigmatized (e.g.
Black or gay) versus nonstigmatized targets (Clark & Maass,
1988; White & Harkins, 1994). Although these studies do
not show that negative stereotypes of stigmatized targets
reduce individuals’ receptiveness to these targets, they are
consistent with the possibility that individuals avoid adopting
opinions espoused by targets whom they view negatively.
Thus, individuals may at times resist social change, not necessarily
because they have negative attitudes towards social
issues or social change as previous research has indicated
(e.g. Feygina et al., 2010; Hodson & Esses, 2002; van
Zomeren et al., 2008) but rather because they have negative
stereotypes of the agents of social change.
In five studies, therefore, we examined whether stereotypes
of activists enhance resistance to social change by reducing
individuals’ willingness to affiliate with activists and,
ultimately, to adopt the pro-change behaviours that activists
advocate. We first identified the stereotypes of two key activist
groups and assessed how these stereotypes affect individuals’
willingness to affiliate with ‘typical’ activists (i.e. those who
conform to activist stereotypes) and ‘atypical’ activists (i.e.
those who do not conform to activist stereotypes; Studies 1
and 3–5). We then examined the extent to which activist
stereotypes influence individuals’ motivation to adopt pro-change
behaviours advocated by ‘typical’ versus ‘atypical’ activists
(Study 2), because it affects their willingness to affiliate with
these activists (Studies 3 and 4). We predicted that individuals
would be more likely to associate ‘typical’ activists with
negative stereotypes, and consequently, they would avoid
affiliating with and, ultimately, adopting the behaviours
advocated by these activists.
PILOT STUDIES
We examined the influence of activist stereotypes on
resistance to social change by focusing on two key activist
groups: feminists and environmentalists. We chose to examine
specific groups to show that, although there may be some
differences in the specific traits that individuals associate with
various activist groups, these stereotypes overlap considerably
and have similar implications for resistance to social change.
Because researchers have not previously examined the traits
that individuals associate with environmentalists and because
past research on feminist stereotypes may not reflect current
perceptions of feminists, we first conducted a set of pilot
studies to identify current stereotypes of these groups.
PILOT STUDIES A AND B
Method
Participants in Pilot Study A were 13 male and 26 female
Americans recruited online via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk
(Mage = 37.59 years, SD = 12.32) who received $0.20. Participants
in Pilot Study B were 49 male and 92 female undergraduate
students (Mage = 19.44 years, SD = 2.02) who received
course credit or $10.
Participants in Pilot Study A were randomly assigned to rate
the extent to which 12 ‘militant/aggressive’ (e.g. ‘aggressive’
and ‘forceful’), 9 ‘eccentric/unconventional’ (e.g. ‘eccentric’
and ‘unusual’) and 12 ‘personable’ (‘friendly’ and ‘pleasant’;
all Cronbach’s αs>.91) traits, which were selected on the basis
of past research on feminist stereotypes (Berryman-Fink &
Verderber, 1985; Twenge & Zucker, 1991), were characteristic
of either a ‘typical’ feminist or a ‘typical’ American.
Ratings were made along 7-point scales anchored at 1 (not
at all characteristic of a ‘typical’ feminist/American) and 7
(very characteristic of a ‘typical’ feminist/American).
In Pilot Study B, participants assigned to one condition
rated the extent to which 12 militant/aggressive (e.g. ‘militant’
and ‘abrasive’), 14 eccentric/unconventional (e.g. ‘eccentric’
and ‘odd-looking’) and 12 personable (e.g. ‘pleasant’ and
‘personable’; all αs>.81) traits were characteristic of a ‘typical’
environmentalist. We note that these traits overlapped
heavily with those used in aforementioned Pilot Study A but
were selected on the basis of representations of environmentalists
in sociological texts and government reports (Brown,
2007; FBI, 2001). Participants assigned to a second condition
rated a ‘typical’ university student, an individual whom student
participants would view as a more mainstream member of
society, on the same traits. Ratings were made along 7-point
scales anchored at 1 (not at all characteristic of a ‘typical’
environmentalist/student) and 7 (very characteristic of a
‘typical’ environmentalist/student).
The ironic impact of activists 615
Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 43, 614–626 (2013)
Results
Pilot Study A
Independent t-tests revealed that participants viewed both
militant and eccentric traits to be more characteristic of
‘typical’ feminists (Mmilitant = 5.36, SD = 1.26; Meccentric = 4.67,
SD = 1.29) than of ‘typical’ Americans (Mmilitant = 4.05,
SD = 1.23; Meccentric = 3.18, SD = 0.91), ts>3.25, ps<.003, rs
.47. Personable traits, in comparison, were viewed as less
characteristic of ‘typical’ feminists (M= 3.55, SD = 1.29) than
of ‘typical’ Americans (M= 4.60, SD = 0.69), t(37) = 3.31,
p = .002, r = .48.
Pilot Study B
Two participants who were asked to rate a ‘typical’ student
and indicated that there is no such thing as a ‘typical’ student
were excluded. Thus, 49 male and 90 female participants were
included in analyses. As was the case for feminists, participants
viewed ‘typical’ environmentalists (Meccentric = 5.06,
SD = 0.60; Mmilitant = 3.59, SD = 0.79; Mpersonable = 4.09,
SD = 0.64) as more eccentric, more militant and less personable
than ‘typical’ students (Meccentric = 3.92, SD = 0.52;
Mmilitant = 3.29, SD = 0.57; Mpersonable = 4.54, SD = 0.56),
ts>2.25, ps<.04, rs>.19.1
Pilot Study C
Pilot Studies A and B indicate that individuals have negative
stereotypes of two key activist groups: feminists and environmentalists.
Given that the traits included in these pilot studies
were selected from previous research and scholarly texts (e.g.
Brown, 2007; Twenge & Zucker, 1991), we used these pilot
studies as a basis for creating the stereotype measures used
in Studies 1–3. We also, however, conducted an additional
pilot study to verify that the traits identified in Pilot Studies A
and B are not simply an artefact of the specific traits included
in these initial pilot studies. We then used the traits identified
in this additional pilot study to create the stereotype measure
for Studies 4 and 5. In Pilot Study C, participants generated
their own traits of ‘typical’ feminists and environmentalists.
Method
Participants were 228 Americans recruited online via Amazon’s
Mechanical Turk (Mage = 33.75 years, SD = 11.71) who
received $0.60. There were 92 male and 131 female
participants. Five participants did not identify their biological
sex. Participants generated 20 traits characteristic of a ‘typical’
feminist and 20 traits characteristic of a ‘typical’ environmentalist.
The order of tasks was counterbalanced across participants.
Results
As predicted, the majority of traits that participants listed as
being characteristic of ‘typical’ feminists and environmentalists
were militant/aggressive and eccentric/unconventional
traits. Table 1 contains the 30 most frequently listed traits for
each group. Specifically, feminists were described in terms
of militant/aggressive traits, such as ‘man hating’ and ‘forceful’,
and with eccentric/unconventional traits, such as ‘behaves
like a man’ and ‘unhygienic’. Environmentalists were described
in terms of militant/aggressive traits, such as ‘militant’
and ‘forceful’, and eccentric/unconventional traits, such as
‘eccentric’ and ‘tree-hugger’. Participants listed additional
traits describing feminists or environmentalists that did not
fall obviously into either of these categories (e.g. ‘animal
lover’ and ‘Democrat’). Overall, however, the traits provided
were overwhelmingly negative, with only a handful of more
positive traits (e.g. ‘caring’ and ‘educated’) appearing on
either list. Thus, it appears that individuals have negative
perceptions of both feminists and environmentalists, viewing
them primarily as aggressive militants and unconventional
eccentrics rather than as pleasant and personable individuals.
Notably, although we did not ask participants to describe
either environmental or feminist ‘activists’ per se, they spontaneously
ascribed this trait to both groups: ‘activist’ was one
of the top 10 most frequently listed traits for both groups.
STUDY 1
Maintaining a positive self-concept is a key goal for individuals
(Sedikides & Gregg, 2008). Thus, if negative stereotypes characterize
‘typical’ activists as militant and eccentric, individuals
may avoid affiliating with them. In Study 1, we examined this
directly. Participants in one condition read about a ‘typical’ feminist,
an individual who promoted women’s rights by organizing
protests and challenging traditional representations of women.
Participants in a second condition read about an ‘atypical’,
personable feminist; this enabled us to examine whether participants
reacted negatively to all feminists or only to those who fit
feminist stereotypes. Control participants read about an individual
whose stance on feminism was not described (i.e. an
undefined target). All participants then rated the extent to which
feminist stereotype traits were characteristic of the target, as well
as their interest in affiliating with the target. We predicted that
participants would be less interested in affiliating with the
‘typical’ feminist relative to the ‘atypical’ feminist and the
undefined target, because they would be more likely to associate
the ‘typical’ feminist with negative stereotypical traits.
We also used this study as an opportunity to rule out potential
alternative explanations for our findings. Individuals who may
be implicated in morally questionable behaviours dislike ‘moral
rebels’, people who appear to condemn the behaviour by
defending relevant social or moral values (Monin, Sawyer, &
Marquez, 2008). Thus, individuals may express less desire in
affiliating with ‘typical’ activists, not because they associate
these targets with negative stereotypes but because they expect
these activists to view them as immoral for failing to be similarly
committed to promoting social change. Alternatively, given that
1Participants may have viewed ‘typical’ environmentalists as less militant than
personable because they were reluctant to endorse the extreme items (e.g.
‘criminal’) in the militant index. Participants were, nevertheless, more likely
to associate militant traits with ‘typical’ environmentalists versus ‘typical’
students.
616 Nadia Y. Bashir et al.
Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 43, 614–626 (2013)
similarity breeds liking (Byrne, 1971), individuals may express
less desire to affiliate with ‘typical’ activists because these
activists seem highly dissimilar to them. In Study 1, therefore,
we examined not only participants’ tendency to attribute
negative stereotypes to the target but also the extent to which
they (i) believed that the target would view them as immoral
and (ii) viewed themselves to be similar to the target.
Method
Participants
Participants were 17 male and 45 female undergraduate students
(Mage = 19.43 years, SD = 4.99) who received course credit.
Procedure
Participants were randomly assigned to read a gender-neutral
profile of a student who represented a ‘typical’ feminist, an
‘atypical’ feminist or an undefined target. Participants in the
undefined target condition read about a target whose stance
on feminism was not described (e.g. ‘When my weekends
aren’t packed with schoolwork and volunteer activities, I
usually spend the day watching TV or hanging out at coffee
shops’). Participants in both the ‘typical’ and ‘atypical’ conditions
read about a target who promoted feminism. However,
whereas the ‘typical’ target used methods that were consistent
with the stereotypes of feminists (e.g. ‘I also organize rallies
outside corporate and political institutions in the community
to pressure CEOs and politicians who don’t prioritize women’s
rights issues into resigning’), the ‘atypical’ target promoted
feminism in a nonstereotypical way, using nonabrasive and
mainstream methods (e.g. ‘I’m involved in organizing social
events at clubs and lounges to raise money for women’s rights
organizations’). A separate group of participants rated the
extent to which the ‘typical’ or ‘atypical’ feminist represented
a ‘typical’ feminist on a scale anchored at 1 (not at all representative
of a ‘typical’ feminist) and 7 (very representative of a
‘typical’ feminist). The ‘typical’ feminist (M= 5.40, SD = 1.69)
seemed more ‘typical’ of feminists than did the ‘atypical’
feminist (M= 4.38, SD = 1.48), t(39) = 2.84, p = .007, r = .41.
Next, participants rated the student on the 33 feminist
stereotype traits identified in Pilot Study A (e.g. militant,
eccentric and pleasant [reverse-scored]; α = .93) along 7-point
scales anchored at 1 (not at all characteristic of the student)
and 7 (very characteristic of the student).2 Participants then
rated seven items concerning their interest in affiliating with
the student (e.g. ‘I can see myself being friends with this
student’; adapted from Montoya & Horton, 2004; α = .89)
along 7-point scales anchored at 1 (STRONGLY DISAGREE)
and 7 (STRONGLY DISAGREE). Last, participants rated the
extent to which they thought the student would view them as
immoral (‘If he/she knew me, the student I read about would
think that I am …’ [reverse-scored]; modified from Minson
& Monin, 2012) and the extent to the student was similar to
them (‘The student I read about is…’). These ratings were
made along 7-point scales anchored at 1 (not at all moral/not
at all similar to me) and 7 (very moral/very similar to me).
Analytic Strategy
We argue that individuals avoid affiliating with and adopting
the behaviours advocated by ‘typical’ activists relative to
‘atypical’ activists and undefined targets because they are
particularly likely to associate negative activist stereotypes
with only those targets that are perceived to be ‘typical’
members of the group defined by these stereotypes (i.e. ‘typical’
activists). Although perceivers may attribute some of these
stereotypical traits to the ‘atypical’ activists and undefined
targets as well (because these traits are not necessarily unique
to activists), we predicted that they would not do so to an extent
that would elicit the same negative reactions as those elicited by
the ‘typical’ activists. Given this specific hypothesis regarding
individuals’ reactions to different types of activists, we
conducted planned contrasts to compare ratings of ‘typical’
activists with those of the ‘atypical’ activists and undefined
targets (Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1991). This procedure allowed
us to minimize the familywise error rate of our statistical tests
by reducing the number of pairwise comparisons conducted.
We used this approach as our primary analytic strategy in all
studies. Within a given study, degrees of freedom may differ
slightly across analyses because of missing data.
2Stereotype traits items in Studies 1 and 2: radical, man hating, bitter, activist,
aggressive, inflexible, argumentative, opinionated, outspoken, defensive,
militant, preachy, hostile, forceful, nonconformist, confrontational, weird,
strange, odd, ugly, eccentric, unconventional, nontraditional, unusual,
approachable, fun, pleasant, friendly, popular, fashionable, social, cool and
interesting (the last nine traits were reverse-scored).
Table 1. Thirty most frequently mentioned traits describing ‘typical’ feminists and ‘typical’ environmentalists
Activist group Traits
‘Typical’ feminist Man hating (145), lesbian (133), unhygienic (95), angry (89), behaves like a man (87), unattractive (84), liberal (79),
ambitious (73), loud (72), activist (72), mean (71), spinster (67), independent (65), forceful (65), assertive (64), whiny
(63), abrasive (62), protester (57), competent (54), dresses like a man (53), self-righteous (51), bitter (49), overreactive
(48), educated (47), strong-willed (45), strong (45), intolerant (44), irrational (42), annoying (42), bad dresser (42)
‘Typical’
environmentalist
Tree-hugger (151), vegetarian (124), hippie (124), liberal (111), unhygienic (91), militant (89), eccentric (85), activist
(82), caring (81), protester (79), overreactive (68), unfashionable (63), self-righteous (61), educated (60), drug user
(53), hairy (52), determined (52), stupid (51), intelligent (50), zealous (48), nontraditional (45), outdoorsy (43),
forceful (43), animal lover (41), intolerant (40), helpful (40), Democrat (40), annoying (40), crazy (37), irrational (36)
Note: Values in parentheses indicate the number of participants who listed the trait.
The ironic impact of activists 617
Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 43, 614–626 (2013)
Results
Stereotypical Traits
An analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed a significant effect
of target on stereotypical traits, F(2, 59) = 34.14, p<.001,
r = .46. The critical planned contrast comparing ratings of the
‘typical’ feminist (2) with those of the ‘atypical’ feminist (1)
and undefined target (1) indicated that participants attributed
more stereotypical feminist traits to the ‘typical’ feminist
(M=5.08, SD = 0.73) than to the ‘atypical’ feminist (M=4.34,
SD = 0.45) and undefined target (M= 3.60, SD = 0.50),
t(59) = 7.19, p<.001, r = .68. Participants also attributed
more stereotypical traits to the ‘atypical’ feminist versus
undefined target, t(59) = 4.07, p<.001, r = .47.
Affiliation
An ANOVA revealed a significant target effect on affiliation,
F(2, 59) = 4.19, p = .02, r = .35. Participants were less
interested in affiliating with the ‘typical’ feminist (M= 3.82,
SD= 1.42) than with the ‘atypical’ feminist (M= 4.29, SD = 0.86)
and undefined target (M= 4.79, SD = 0.82), t(59) =2.49, p = .02,
r = .31. Ratings of the ‘atypical’ feminist and undefined target did
not differ significantly, t(59) = 1.48, p = .14, r = .19.3
Mediation Analysis
We argue that individuals avoid affiliating with ‘typical’ activists
because they associate them with negative stereotypes rather than
because they expect to be reproached by ‘typical’ activists or view
themselves as dissimilar to ‘typical’ activists (see Table 2 for
descriptive statistics for moral reproach and perceived similarity).
We therefore tested a parallel multiple mediator model with
5000 bootstrapped resamples (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). Given
our focus on comparing ‘typical’ activists with ‘atypical’ activists
and undefined targets, we converted our target variable to a dichotomous
variable coded (0) ‘atypical’ feminist/undefined target and
(1) ‘typical’ feminist. Results revealed that the 95% bias-corrected
confidence interval (CI) [1.81, 0.65] of the indirect effect of
target on affiliation through stereotypical traits did not contain
zero. The indirect effects through moral reproach (95% CI
[0.23, .23]) and perceived similarity (95% CI [0.39, 0.00]),
in comparison, were nonsignificant. Thus, stereotypical target
perceptions mediated the effect of target on affiliation, whereas
anticipated moral reproach and perceived similarity did not.4
Discussion
Participants expressed less desire to affiliate with the ‘typical’
feminist relative to the ‘atypical’ feminist and undefined target
because they associated the ‘typical’ feminist with more
negative stereotypical traits. Furthermore, participants’ stereotypical
perceptions of the ‘typical’ feminist reduced their willingness
to affiliate with this target over and above the influence
of moral reproach and perceived similarity. Thus, the present
findings provide evidence that stereotypes of activists have
important implications for individuals’ reactions to activists.
STUDY 2
Study 1 shows that individuals avoid affiliating with activists
because they associate them with negative stereotypes. This
may have crucial implications for the extent to which activists
have opportunities to transmit pro-change goals and values to
others (Cohen, 2003; Walton, Cohen, Cwir, & Spencer,
2012). In Study 2, we directly examined the impact of negative
activist stereotypes on how receptive individuals are to
activists’ initiatives to promote social change.
Method
Participants
Participants were 90 undergraduate students who received
course credit. One participant who provided the same
response to all behavioural intentions items and whose score
on this measure was more than three standard deviations
below the mean was excluded. Accordingly, 46 male and
43 female participants (Mage = 18.63 years, SD = 1.98) were
included in analyses.
Procedure
Participants were randomly assigned to read a bogus profile
of a journalist who represented a ‘typical’ feminist, an
‘atypical’ feminist or an undefined target. These profiles
were very similar to those used in Study 1 but described
the target as a journalist rather than as a student to provide
a rationale for subsequently presenting participants with an
article written by the target. After reading the profile,
participants read an article about the need for individuals to
actively support women’s rights concerns:
women still face enormous obstacles: They are undervalued
in the workplace, objectified in the media, and physically
assaulted at alarmingly high rates. Furthermore, women
living in less tolerant regions of the world still require
substantial international help to achieve even very basic legal
rights and to ensure their physical safety.
3We provide additional information regarding effect sizes for comparisons
between individual conditions in a meta-analysis following Study 5.
4Participants in all studies rated the ‘typical’ activist as more militant,
ps<.001, more eccentric, ps<.07, and less personable, ps<.03, than the
other targets. Not surprisingly, therefore, we found the same pattern of mediation
results when we reran these analyses and replaced the overall stereotypes
index with an index of only the militant, eccentric or personable traits.
Table 2. Mean ratings of moral reproach and perceived similarity
in Study 1
‘Typical’
activist
‘Atypical’
activist
Undefined
target
Moral reproach 4.27 (1.45) a 3.30 (1.30) b 2.95 (0.89) b
Perceived similarity 2.45 (1.26) a 3.10 (1.45) a, b 3.45 (1.28) b
Note: Standard deviations are in parentheses. Means within the same row with
different lowercase letters are significantly different at p<.05.
618 Nadia Y. Bashir et al.
Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 43, 614–626 (2013)
All participants read the same article, but they were told
that it had been written by the journalist whom they had just
read about. Next, participants completed the stereotypical
traits measure used in Study 1 (α = .85). They then rated 22
items concerning their intentions to perform pro-gender
equality behaviours (‘I plan to get involved in pro-women’s
rights initiatives at my school or in my community’; adapted
from Bashir, Lockwood, Dolderman, Sarkissian, & Quick,
2011; α = .96) along 7-point scales anchored at 1 (strongly
disagree) and 7 (strongly agree). Last, to verify that participants
did in fact view the ‘typical’ feminist to be more
‘typical’ of feminists than the other targets, participants
rated the extent to which the author of the article fit
common stereotypes of feminists along a 7-point scale
anchored at 1 (does not fit stereotypes of feminists) and
7 (fits stereotypes of feminists).
Results
Typicality Manipulation Check
An ANOVA on the single-item typicality rating revealed a
significant effect of target, F(2, 86) = 8.66, p<.001, r = .41. Participants’
typicality ratings were higher for the ‘typical’ feminist
(M=6.03, SD = 0.84) than for the ‘atypical’ feminist (M=5.54,
SD=1.14), t(86) = 1.74, p = .09, r = .18, and the undefined target
(M=4.87, SD = 1.28), t(86) = 4.15, p<.001, r = .41.
Stereotypical Traits
An ANOVA revealed a significant target effect on stereotypical
traits, F(2, 86) = 11.84, p<.001, r = .46. Participants
attributed more stereotypical feminist traits to the ‘typical’
feminist (M= 4.90, SD = 0.45) than to the ‘atypical’ feminist
(M= 4.57, SD = 0.58) and the undefined target (M= 4.28,
SD = 0.46), t(86) = 4.27, p<.001, r = .42. Participants also
attributed more feminist traits to the ‘atypical’ feminist
versus undefined target, t(86) = 2.22, p = .03, r = .23.
Behavioural Intentions
An ANOVA revealed a marginal overall effect of target on
behavioural intentions, F(2, 86) = 2.35, p = .10, r = .23. The
critical planned contrast comparing the ‘typical’ feminist with
the ‘atypical’ feminist and undefined target, however, was
significant: Participants were less motivated to adopt proequality
behaviours when these behaviours were advocated
by the ‘typical’ feminist (M= 4.14, SD = 1.34) rather than by
the ‘atypical’ feminist (M= 4.71, SD = 0.73) and undefined
target (M= 4.55, SD = 0.91), t(86) =2.10, p = .04, r = .22.
Participants did not differ in their behavioural intentions when
these behaviours were advocated by the ‘atypical’ feminist
versus the undefined target, t(86) = .60, p = .55, r = .06.
Mediation Analysis
Using the same procedure as in Study 1, we found that
stereotypical traits mediated the effect of target on behavioural
intentions (95% bias-corrected CI [0.59, 0.09]). Thus,
participants were less likely to adopt pro-equality behaviours
when they were advocated by the ‘typical’ feminist because
they attributed more negative stereotypical traits to this target.5
Discussion
This study revealed that participants were less motivated to
adopt pro-equality behaviours when these behaviours were
ostensibly advocated by the ‘typical’ feminist rather than when
these same behaviours were advocated by the ‘atypical’ feminist
or the undefined target, because participants were more likely to
associate the ‘typical’ feminist with negative stereotypical traits.
Thus, despite aggressively promoting social change, ‘typical’
activists may, ironically, undermine individuals’ motivation to
engage in pro-change behaviours.
STUDY 3
Although Studies 1 and 2 provide converging evidence that
negative stereotypes of activists undermine the pro-change
influence of activists, it may be that the effects observed in these
studies are specific to feminists and do not generalize to other
activists. The pilot studies indicate, however, that individuals
ascribe similarly negative traits to environmentalists, viewing
members of both groups as militant/aggressive and eccentric/
unconventional. This suggests that negative stereotypes may
indeed characterize activist groups in general and limit their
success in promoting social change. In Study 3, we obtained
additional support for this argument by replicating the effects
observed in Studies 1 and 2 with environmentalist targets.
We also used this study as an opportunity to examine the
relationships between stereotypes, affiliation and pro-change
behavioural intentions within the same study. We have argued
that individuals are reluctant to affiliate with activists because they
associate them with negative stereotypes. This reluctance to affiliate
may in turn contribute to individuals’ rejection of the activists’
message. Indeed, because individuals who seem undesirable as
interaction or relationship partners are rejected by others (Hebl,
Williams, Sundermann, Kell, & Davies, 2012), individuals may
wish to avoid engaging in behaviours that would characterize
them in a similarly negative light. Thus, if individuals associate
activists with negative stereotypes and therefore view them as people
with whom it would be undesirable to affiliate, they may be
less motivated to engage in the pro-change behaviours that are
characteristic of activists. We examined this directly in Study 3.
Method
Participants
Participants were 140Americans (Mage = 34.10 years, SD=12.23)
recruited online via Amazon’sMechanical Turk who received
$0.75. There were 55 male and 74 female participants. Eleven
participants did not identify their biological sex.
5To provide evidence that individuals’ stereotypes of activists influence their
support for social change over and above the influence of their beliefs about
social issues, we verified that stereotypical traits significantly mediated the
effect of target on behavioural intentions in Study 2 (95% CI [0.54, 0.06]),
even when controlling for participants’ beliefs that gender inequality is still a
serious problem.
The ironic impact of activists 619
Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 43, 614–626 (2013)
Procedure
Similar to Study 2, participants in Study 3 were randomly
assigned to read a bogus profile of a journalist who represented
a ‘typical’ environmentalist (‘I hold rallies outside chemical
research labs…to protest the production of harmful chemical
substances’), an ‘atypical’ environmentalist (‘I’m involved in
organizing social events at restaurants and lounges to raise
money for grassroots-level environmental organizations’) or an
undefined target (‘When my weekends aren’t packed with work
and volunteer activities, I usually spend the day watching TV or
hanging out at coffee shops’). As in Study 1, a separate group of
participants rated the typicality of the targets described in the
target profiles. Participants viewed the targets described in the
‘typical’ environmentalist profile (M=6.15, SD= 0.93) to be
more ‘typical’ of environmentalists than the targets described
in the ‘atypical’ environmentalist (M= 5.12, SD = 1.57) and
undefined target (M= 2.82, SD = 1.34) profiles, ts >3.24,
ps<.004, rs>.49.6
Next, participants read a fictitious pro-environmental article
about climate change and the need for individuals to adopt
sustainable lifestyles (e.g. ‘Scientific evidence suggests that
within 10 years, hurricanes will become more frequent and
intense than they are now, and as a result, they’ll devastate many
regions around the world’). As in Study 2, all participants read the
same article but were told that it had been written by the journalist
whom they had read about. Participants then completed a 16-item
version of the stereotypical traits measure used in Studies 1 and 2
(α = .90), which was created on the basis of the environmentalist
traits identified in Pilot Study B.7 They also completed the
affiliation measure used in Studies 1 and 2 (α = .97) and a 29-item
measure assessing their pro-environmental behavioural intentions
(e.g. ‘I plan to always recycle whatever materials I can’; α = .97).
Participants rated their intentions along 7-point scales anchored at
1 (strongly disagree) and 7 (strongly agree).
Results
Stereotypical Traits
An ANOVA revealed a significant target effect on stereotypical
traits, F(2, 137) = 70.31, p<.001, r = .71. Participants attributed
more stereotypical environmentalist traits to the ‘typical’ environmentalist
(M= 5.00, SD = 0.96) than to the ‘atypical’ environmentalist
(M=3.73 SD = 0.64) and undefined target (M= 3.18,
SD=0.54), t(137) = 11.58, p<.001, r = .70. They also attributed
more stereotypical traits to the ‘atypical’ environmentalist versus
the undefined target, t(137) = 3.62, p<.001, r = .30.
Affiliation
An ANOVA revealed a significant effect of target on affiliation,
F(2, 135) = 34.38, p<.001, r = .58. As in Study 1, participants
were less interested in affiliating with the ‘typical’ environmentalist
(M=2.44, SD= 1.62) than with the ‘atypical’ environmentalist
(M= 4.53 SD = 1.31) and undefined target (M= 4.66,
SD = 1.37), t(135) =8.28, p<.001, r = .58. Their ratings of
the ‘atypical’ environmentalist versus the undefined target did
not differ significantly, t(135) = .34, p = .73, r = .06.
Behavioural Intentions
An ANOVA revealed a marginal overall target effect on
behavioural intentions, F(2, 130) = 2.73, p = .07, r = .20.
Similar to the results obtained in Study 2, the critical
planned contrast comparing the ‘typical’ environmentalist
with the ‘atypical’ environmentalist and undefined target
was significant: Participants were less motivated to adopt
pro-environmental behaviours when these behaviours were
advocated by the ‘typical’ environmentalist (M= 4.07,
SD = 1.30) rather than by the ‘atypical’ environmentalist
(M= 4.64, SD = 1.08) or undefined target (M= 4.59,
SD = 1.39), t(130) =2.30, p = .02, r = .20. Participants did
not differ in their pro-environmental behavioural intentions
when these behaviours were advocated by the ‘atypical’
environmentalist versus the undefined target, t(130) = .19,
p = .85, r = .02.
Mediation Analysis
Using a serial multiple mediator model based on 5000
bootstrapped resamples (Hayes, 2013), we examined the
extent to which stereotypical perceptions of the ‘typical’
environmentalist reduced interest in affiliating with this
environmentalist, which ultimately reduced intentions to
adopt the behaviours advocated by this target. The indirect
effect of target on behavioural intentions through the two
serial mediators, stereotypical traits and affiliation, was
significant (95% bias-corrected CI [0.63, 0.08]). Thus,
because individuals associate ‘typical’ environmentalists
with negative stereotypes, they are less interested in affiliating
with them and consequently less inclined to adopt
the behaviours that these environmentalists advocate.
Discussion
This study provides converging evidence that individuals
avoid adopting pro-change behaviours when these behaviours
are advocated by ‘typical’ activists rather than by
‘atypical’ activists or individuals who are not described as
activists. Furthermore, the present findings demonstrate that
individuals avoid adopting pro-change behaviours advocated
by ‘typical’ activists because they associate these
activists with negative stereotypes and therefore view them
as people with whom it would be undesirable to affiliate.
6Participants may have reacted more favourably to the ‘atypical’ activists
because they did not truly perceive these targets as environmentalists or
feminists or because they perceived these targets as promoting subtle rather
than considerable social change. A separate group of participants (N= 71)
indicated, however, that both the ‘typical’ and ‘atypical’ target profiles in Studies
2–4 represented feminists or environmentalists (all ratings greater than 6 on a
scale anchored at 1 [not at all a feminist/environmentalist] and 7 [very much a
feminist/environmentalist]). Participants also rated the degree to which the targets
advocated the need for substantial societal change. Ratings of the ‘typical’ and
‘atypical’ targets did not differ significantly, ps>.29.
7Study 3 stereotype traits items: radical, aggressive, forceful, annoying, crusader,
activist, judgmental, eccentric, tofu-eating, scruffy, fun, pleasant, cool,
friendly, approachable and social (the last six traits were reverse-scored).
620 Nadia Y. Bashir et al.
Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 43, 614–626 (2013)
STUDY 4
Studies 1–3 provide converging evidence that individuals
avoid supporting social change in part because they associate
activists with unfavourable stereotypes and therefore resist
the efforts of these activists to promote change. In Study 4,
we obtained additional evidence for this argument by
replicating Study 3 using the more organically derived
environmentalist stereotype traits identified in Pilot Study C.
Method
Participants
Participants were 238 Americans (Mage = 35.53 years, SD = 12.84)
recruited online via Amazon’sMechanical Turk who received
$0.65. There were 87 male and 145 female participants. Six
participants did not identify their sex.
Procedure
Participants in Study 4 completed the same procedure used in
Study 3 with the following exceptions. First, the stereotype
measure was composed of the 30 most frequently listed
environmentalist traits obtained in Pilot Study C (Table 1).
To maintain consistency across studies, we also included
the six personable traits used in Studies 1–3 in this measure
(α = .90). Second, to provide evidence that participants did
in fact view the ‘typical’ environmentalist to be more ‘typical’
of environmentalists than the other targets, at the end of the
study, participants completed the same typicality manipulation
check rating used in Study 2. Last, to verify that the identity
of the target had an impact on participants’ pro-change
behavioural intentions over and above any effects that could
be attributed solely to the article, participants who were
randomly assigned to a second control group read the article
and completed all measures without first reading a target
profile (unidentified journalist condition).
Results and Discussion
Typicality Manipulation Check
An ANOVA on the single-item typicality rating revealed a
significant target effect, F(3, 231) = 17.63, p<.001, r = .43.
Participants’ ratings were significantly higher for the ‘typical’
environmentalist (M= 6.24, SD = 0.99) than for the ‘atypical’
environmentalist (M= 5.34, SD = 1.54), undefined target
(M= 4.59, SD = 1.48) and unidentified journalist (M= 4.89,
SD = 1.25), ts>3.69, ps<.001, rs>.24.
Stereotypical Traits
An ANOVA revealed a significant target effect on stereotypical
traits, F(3, 232) = 38.40, p<.001, r = .58. Participants
attributed more stereotypical environmentalist traits to the
‘typical’ environmentalist (M= 4.91, SD = 0.63) than to the
‘atypical’ environmentalist (M= 4.16, SD = 0.62), undefined
target (M= 3.81, SD = 0.54) and unidentified journalist
(M= 4.10, SD = 0.56), t(232) = 10.16, p<.001, r = .55. They
also attributed more stereotypical traits to the ‘atypical’
environmentalist versus the undefined target, t(232) = 3.23,
p = .001, r = .21, and the unidentified target versus the
undefined target, t(232) = 2.63, p = .009, r = .17. Ratings of
the ‘atypical’ environmentalist and unidentified target did
not differ significantly, t(232) = .58, p = .56, r = .04.
Affiliation
An ANOVA revealed a significant target effect on affiliation
(α = .97), F(3, 234) = 20.44, p<.001, r = .46. Similar to
Studies 1–3, participants were less interested in affiliating with
the ‘typical’ environmentalist (M= 2.83, SD = 1.65) than with
the ‘atypical’ environmentalist (M= 4.53, SD = 1.61),
undefined target (M= 4.79, SD = 1.51) and unidentified journalist
(M= 4.35, SD = 1.24), t(234) =7.66, p<.001, r = .45.
Their ratings of the ‘atypical’ environmentalist, the undefined
target and the unidentified journalist did not differ, ts<1.57,
ps>.11, rs<.10.
Behavioural Intentions
AnANOVArevealed amarginal overall effect of target on behavioural
intentions (α = .97), F(3, 234) = 2.29, p = .08, r = .17. As in
Studies 2 and 3, the critical planned contrast was significant:
Participants were less motivated to adopt pro-environmental
behaviours when these behaviours were advocated by the ‘typical’
environmentalist (M= 4.41, SD = 1.13) rather than by the
‘atypical’ environmentalist (M= 4.62, SD = 1.26), undefined target
(M= 4.75, SD = 1.31) or unidentified journalist (M= 4.97,
SD= 0.98), t(234) =2.06, p = .04, r = .13. Participants’ behavioural
intentions did not differ when these behaviours were
advocated by the ‘atypical’ environmentalist, the undefined
target or the unidentified journalist, ts<1.68, ps>.11, rs<.11.
Mediation Analysis
As in Study 3, the indirect effect of target on behavioural intentions
through the two serialmediators, stereotypical traits and affiliation,
was significant (95% bias-corrected CI [0.49, 0.23]).
Thus, even when participants rated a ‘typical’ environmentalist
on the traits that most closely reflect individuals’
stereotypes of environmentalists, their tendency to attribute
negative stereotypes to this target reduced their willingness
to affiliate with this target and, ultimately, their motivation
to adopt pro-change behaviours advocated by this target.
STUDY 5
In Studies 1–4, we manipulated target typicality using profiles
that described the targets in a stereotype-consistent or
stereotype-inconsistent manner, on the basis of the results of
the pilot studies. Because activist stereotypes are largely
negative, the profiles describing the ‘typical’ activists contained
more negative information than did the profiles describing the
other targets. Thus, to verify that participants’ reactions to the
targets were influenced by the targets’ typicality rather than by
The ironic impact of activists 621
Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 43, 614–626 (2013)
only the valence of the profiles, we conducted an additional
study in which participants simply read that the target was a
‘typical’ or ‘atypical’ environmentalist or feminist and did not
receive any valenced target information.
Method
Participants
We recruited 194 Americans (Mage = 34.68 years, SD = 13.75)
online via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. They received $0.45.
There were 73 male and 114 female participants. Seven
participants did not identify their sex.
Procedure
Participants were randomly assigned to read about a ‘typical’
or ‘atypical’ environmentalist or feminist. Specifically, participants
read that
A. M. Johnson is very committed to promoting [environmentalism/
women’s rights], [and is a typical/but is an
atypical] [environmentalist/feminist]. That is, Johnson is
[very different from] what members of society expect
[an environmentalist/a feminist] to be like.
Participants did not receive any specific or valenced target
information. Participants in the environmentalist conditions then
completed the stereotype trait measure used in Study 4 (α = .89).
Participants in the feminist conditions completed the same measure
except that the environmentalist traits were replaced with the top
30 feminist traits identified in Pilot Study C (Table 1; α = .94). Last,
participants completed the affiliation measure (α = .94) and singleitem
typicality manipulation check used in the previous studies.
Results and Discussion
Typicality Manipulation Check
A 2 (manipulated typicality: ‘typical’, ‘atypical’) × 2 (activist
domain: environmentalist, feminist) ANOVA on the single-item
typicality rating revealed amain effect of manipulated typicality.
Participants rated the ‘typical’ (M=5.17, SD = 1.51) versus
‘atypical’ (M= 3.16, SD= 1.58) activists as more ‘typical’, F(1,
189) = 79.99, p<.001, r = .55. The main effect of domain and
interaction were nonsignificant, Fs<0.20, ps>.65, rs<.03.
Stereotypical Traits
A 2 × 2 ANOVA revealed a main effect of manipulated typicality
on stereotypical traits. Participants attributed more stereotypical
feminist or environmentalist traits to the ‘typical’ (M= 4.51,
SD = 0.67) versus ‘atypical’ (M= 3.85, SD = 0.75) activists,
F(1, 190) = 41.47, p<.001, r = .42. The main effect of domain
and interaction were nonsignificant, Fs<0.15, ps>.70, rs<.03.
Affiliation
A 2 × 2 ANOVA also revealed a main effect of manipulated
typicality on affiliation. Participants were less interested in
affiliating with the ‘typical’ (M= 3.91, SD = 1.51) versus
‘atypical’ (M= 4.32, SD = 1.36) activists, F(1, 189) = 4.28,
p = .04, r = .15 Although participants were more willing to
affiliate with environmentalists (M= 4.44, SD = 1.11) than
feminists (M= 3.81, SD = 1.64), F(1, 189) = 10.19, p = .002,
r = .23, activist domain did not moderate the manipulated
typicality effect, F(1, 189) = 1.59, p = .21, r = .09.
Mediation Analysis
Consistent with Studies 1–4, participants were less willing to
affiliate with the ‘typical’ versus ‘atypical’ targets because
they attributed more negative stereotypical traits to these targets
(95% bias-corrected CI [0.49, 0.22]).
Thus, even when perceivers do not receive any specific
or valenced target information, they attribute more negative
stereotypical traits to ‘typical’ versus ‘atypical’ activists
and therefore react more negatively to them.
Meta-analysis of Effects
We have argued that individuals are less willing to affiliate
with and adopt behaviours advocated by ‘typical’ activists
relative to ‘atypical’ activists and undefined targets. To
assess the overall evidence for this argument, we conducted
a meta-analysis for the key comparisons involving these
variables across all studies (Table 3). An unweighted means
approach revealed an overall ‘typical’ versus ‘atypical’ activist
effect on affiliation (r = .32, 95% CI [0.12, 0.52]) and behavioural
intentions (r = .16, 95% CI [0.06, 0.26]). Similarly,
there was an overall ‘typical’ activist versus undefined target
effect on affiliation (r = .43, 95% CI [0.31, 0.55]) and behavioural
intentions (r = .14, 95% CI [0.10, 0.18]). The overall
‘atypical’ activist versus undefined target effect, in contrast,
was small for affiliation (r = .10, 95% CI [0.02, 0.19]) and did
not differ significantly from zero on behavioural intentions
(r =.01, 95% CI [0.07, 0.04]). Furthermore, when using a
weighted means approach, the overall ‘atypical’ activist versus
undefined target effect did not differ significantly from zero on
affiliation (r = .08, 95% CI [0.02, 0.17]) or behavioural
intentions (r = .004, 95% CI [0.09, 0.10]). For comparisons
of ‘typical’ activists with ‘atypical’ activists and
‘typical’ activists with undefined targets, the unweighted
and weighted means approaches produced similar patterns
of results. Thus, across studies, we found a consistent
effect for the difference in responses to ‘typical’ and
‘atypical’ activists and also for the difference in responses
to ‘typical’ activists and undefined targets. In contrast,
individuals’ responses to ‘atypical’ activists and undefined
targets did not differ consistently. The results of our
meta-analysis thus provide additional evidence that individuals
avoid affiliating with and adopting the behaviours
advocated by ‘typical’ activists.
Testing Alternative Models
We argue that individuals avoid affiliating with ‘typical’
activists and adopting the pro-change behaviours that ‘typical’
activists advocate because they associate these activists with
negative stereotypes. This possibility is consistent with
622 Nadia Y. Bashir et al.
Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 43, 614–626 (2013)
Table 3. Significance values and effect sizes for pairwise comparisons in Studies 1–5
‘Typical’ vs. ‘atypical’
activist
‘Typical’ vs. undefined
target
‘Atypical’ activist
vs. undefined target
‘Typical’ activist vs.
unidentified target
‘Atypical’ activist vs.
unidentified target
Undefined target vs.
unidentified target
p
Effect size
(r) p
Effect size
(r) p
Effect size
(r) p
Effect size
(r) p
Effect size
(r) p
Effect size
(r)
Study 1
Traits <.001 .47 <.001 .73 <.001 .47
Affiliation .17 .18 .005 .35 .14 .19
Study 2
Traits .01 .26 <.001 .46 .03 .23
Intentions .04 .22 .14 .16 .55 .06
Study 3
Traits <.001 .59 <.001 .70 <.001 .30
Affiliation <.001 .53 <.001 .52 .73 .06
Intentions .03 .19 .07 .16 .85 .02
Study 4
Traits <.001 .42 <.001 .56 .001 .21 <.001 .44 .56 .04 .009 .17
Affiliation <.001 .37 <.001 .42 .37 .06 <.001 .34 .51 .04 .12 .10
Intentions .35 .06 .13 .10 .55 .04 .01 .16 .12 .10 .31 .07
Study 5
Traits <.001 .42
Affiliation .04 .15
The ironic impact of activists 623
Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 43, 614–626 (2013)
research indicating that individuals draw on their impressions of
targets (e.g. perceptions of targets’ traits) when forming evaluations
of the targets and determining how they should react to the
targets (Fiske & Neuberg, 1990; Macrae & Bodenhausen,
2000). It is also possible, however, that individuals form negative
perceptions of activists after they reject an opportunity to
affiliate with ‘typical’ activists or adopt the behaviours that ‘typical’
activists advocate, because they need to justify their initial
negative reactions. This second explanation is not necessarily
inconsistent with our argument. Indeed, it may be that individuals’
stereotypical perceptions of activists reduce their
willingness to affiliate with ‘typical’ activists and adopt the
pro-change behaviours that ‘typical’ activists advocate, which
may ultimately reinforce individuals’ initial stereotypical
perceptions. Nonetheless, we examined alternative mediation
models by assessing models corresponding to all possible serial
permutations of the mediators and dependent variable in Studies
1–5. This produced one alternative model in Studies 1, 2 and 5
and five alternative models in Studies 3 and 4. The indirect
effects for the alternative model in Study 2, four of the alternative
models in Study 3 and two of the alternative models in Study 4
were nonsignificant. Furthermore, although the remaining alternative
models did produce significant indirect effects, the size of the
indirect effect in all alternative models was smaller than that of the
original model in Study 1 (original model: r = .51; alternative
model: r = .29), Study 2 (original model: r = .25; alternative
model: r = .16), Study 3 (original model: r = .19; all alternative
models: rs = .004–.12), Study 4 (original model: r = .33; all
alternative models: rs=.05–.25) and Study 5 (original model:
r = .34; alternative model: r = .14). Thus, although there is some
evidence to suggest that individuals’ willingness to affiliate with
activists and adopt the behaviours that they advocate may subsequently
influence their stereotypical perceptions of these
activists, the evidence ismore consistent with the possibility that
individuals’ stereotypes of activists influence their desire to
affiliate with and emulate activists. Indeed, the only consistent
pattern of mediation across all studies was that in which stereotypical
perceptions served as a mediating variable rather than the
dependent variable.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
The present research shows that individuals’ stereotypes of
activists influence their support for social change. Previously,
researchers have attempted to understand resistance to social
change by examining individuals’ perceptions of social
issues, attitudes towards social change and personality traits
(e.g. Feygina et al., 2010; Hodson & Esses, 2002; van Zomeren
et al., 2008). The present research, in comparison, assesses the
extent to which individuals’ stereotypes of activists, the agents
of social change, increase resistance to social change. Individuals
believe that it is important and socially desirable to support
social change (Beattie, 2010; Nelson et al., 2008), which
suggests that they should view activists favourably and be
receptive to their efforts. Unfortunately, however, the very
nature of activism leads to negative stereotyping: By aggressively
promoting change and advocating unconventional
practices, activists become associated with hostile militancy
and unconventionality or eccentricity. Indeed, we show that
the tendency to associate ‘typical’ activists with these negative
stereotypes mediates individuals’ unfavourable reactions
to the activists. Specifically, individuals avoid affiliating with
‘typical’ activists (Studies 1 and 3–5) because they view them as
militant/aggressive and eccentric/unconventional. Furthermore,
this tendency to associate activists with negative stereotypes and
perceive them as people with whom it would be unpleasant to
affiliate reduces individuals’ motivation to adopt the pro-change
behaviours that activists advocate (Studies 2–4). This research
indicates, therefore, that stereotypes and person perception
processes more generally influence individuals’ receptiveness to
activists and their pro-change initiatives.
Our studies also reveal the nuances of these effects by
showing that individuals do not avoid affiliating with and
adopting the behaviours advocated by all activists. Indeed,
although participants reacted negatively to the ‘typical’ activists,
their willingness to affiliate with and adopt the behaviours
advocated by ‘atypical’ activists and undefined targets did not
differ. This suggests that it is not mere membership in an activist
group but rather the degree to which an activist conforms to
group stereotypes that influences perceivers’ reactions. Whereas
individuals may avoid affiliating with and emulating activists
who seem to conform to activist stereotypes, they may be more
receptive to activists who defy these stereotypes by coming
across as pleasant and approachable.
The present findings also contribute theoretically by
illustrating effects that differ from those observed in research
on message source typicality. On the basis of source typicality
research (Ziegler & Diehl, 2011; Ziegler, Diehl, & Ruther,
2002), individuals should respond more favourably to
messages containing strong arguments and less favourably to
messages containing weak arguments when they are delivered
by an ‘atypical’ activist rather than a ‘typical’ activist or
undefined target. Indeed, ‘atypical’ activists possess ‘atypical’
combinations of personality traits (i.e. personable and environmentalist),
whereas ‘typical’ activists and undefined targets do
not. According to source typicality research, therefore,
‘atypical’ activists should disconfirm perceivers’ expectations
and elicit greater information processing. In our studies,
however, participants responded similarly to the message
delivered by the ‘atypical’ activists and undefined targets.
Researchers have also examined message source typicality
in terms of the fit between the position advocated in a message
(e.g. pro-environmental stance) and the message source (e.g.
director of an environmental group versus CEO of an oil company;
Eagly, Wood, & Chaiken, 1978). In our studies, both the
‘typical’ and ‘atypical’ activists were portrayed as individuals
who advocate social change whereas the undefined targets
were not. Indeed, participants in Study 3 viewed the ‘typical’
and ‘atypical’ environmentalists to be similarly environmentally
friendly, t(96) = .06, p = .96, and significantly more environmentally
friendly than the undefined target, ts>5.51,
ps<.001. Source typicality research would suggest, therefore,
that individuals should respond similarly to messages
delivered by ‘typical’ and ‘atypical’ activists and differently to
messages delivered by these targets versus undefined targets.
We show, however, that individuals differed in their pro-change
behavioural intentions when these behaviours were advocated
by ‘typical’ versus ‘atypical’ activists but not when these
624 Nadia Y. Bashir et al.
Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 43, 614–626 (2013)
behaviours were advocated by ‘atypical’ activists versus
undefined targets. Thus, whereas our data are consistent with
the argument that stereotypes influence individuals’ reactions
to activists, they are inconsistent with alternative explanations
based on source typicality research.
Although we examined the implications of activist stereotypes
for social change by focusing on two key activist groups, we
argue that the militant and eccentric traits that characterize these
groups also characterize a variety of activist groups (e.g. gay
rights, political democracy and Occupy Wall Street activists).
Some activist groups (e.g. gun control advocates) maybe less
likely to engage in overtly aggressive advocacy and may,
therefore, be less likely to be perceived as militant. We note,
however, that many of the stereotypical traits generated by participants
in Pilot Study C describe activists as argumentative and
confrontational but not necessarily violent (e.g. ‘forceful’, ‘selfrighteous’,
‘assertive’ and ‘overreactive’). Because it is possible
for individuals to be argumentative and confrontational even
when advocating causes that explicitly condemn violence,
individuals may associate militant and eccentric traits even with
those activist groups that exemplify these traits less overtly than
do feminists and environmentalists. In future research, it will be
important to assess these possibilities directly.
We examined individuals’ reactions to activists without
considering perceivers’ own identity as activists. Activist and
nonactivist perceivers may, however, respond differently to
activist targets. Indeed, because individuals generally view
ingroup members positively (Sherif, Harvey, White, Hood, &
Sherif 1961; Tajfel & Turner, 1979), activist perceivers may
respond relatively favourably to ‘typical’ activists. On the other
hand, because individuals have especially unfavourable impressions
of group members who perform undesirable behaviours
(Marques, Yzerbyt, & Leyens, 1988), activist perceivers who
condemn the use of militant methods to promote social change
(e.g. ‘atypical’ activists) may react particularly negatively to
‘typical’ activists. In future work, researchers may wish to
examinewhether perceiver identity moderates reactions to activists.
For many activists, the willingness to take a radical stand without
regard for mainstream sensibilities is a point of pride. Indeed,
environmental activist and author of ‘Tree Spiker’ Mike Roselle
(as cited in Olafsson, 2009) defends his militant efforts to protect
the environment, noting, ‘I don’t think there’s anything extreme
about saying we have to stop pumping carbon into the air. If we’re
extremists, so be it. The stakes are too high’ (para. 6). The present
research suggests, however, that such seemingly zealous dedication
to a social cause may backfire and elicit unfavourable reactions
from others. Indeed, individuals avoid affiliating with
‘typical’ activists and adopting the pro-change behaviours that
these activists advocate because individuals associate them with
negative stereotypes. Ironically and despite good intentions, therefore,
the very individuals who are most actively engaged in promoting
social change may inadvertently alienate members of the
public and reduce pro-change motivation.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was supported by a Social Sciences and Humanities
Research Council (SSHRC) Canada Graduate Scholarship to the
first author and a SSHRC grant to the second author.
REFERENCES
Agronick, G. S., & Duncan, L. E. (1998). Personality and social change:
Individual differences, life path, and importance attributed to the
women’s movement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
74, 1545–1555. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1545
Aronson, P. (2003). Feminists or “postfeminists?” Young women’s attitudes
toward feminism and gender relations. Gender & Society, 17, 903–922.
DOI: 10.1177/0891243203257145
Bashir, N. Y., Lockwood, P., Dolderman, D., Sarkissian, T., & Quick,
L. K. (2011). Emphasizing jobs and trees: Increasing the impact of
proenvironmental messages on migrants. Basic and Applied Social
Psychology, 33, 255–265. DOI: 10.1080/01973533.2011.589319
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for
interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 117, 497–529. DOI: 10.1037/
0033-2909.117.3.497
Beattie, G. (2010). Why aren’t we saving the planet? A psychologist’s
perspective. London, UK: Routledge.
Berryman-Fink, C., & Verderber, K. S. (1985). Attributions of the term feminist:
A factor analytic development of a measuring instrument. Psychology
of Women Quarterly, 9, 51–64. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.1985.tb00860.x
Brown, G. (2007). Mutinous eruptions: Autonomous spaces of radical queer
activism. Environment and Planning A, 39, 2685–2698. DOI: 10.1068/a38385
Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Clark, R. D., III, & Maass, A. (1988). Social categorization in minority
influence: The case of homosexuality. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 18, 347–364. DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.2420180405
Cohen, G. L. (2003). Party over policy: The dominating impact of group influence
on political beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85,
808–822. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.808
Czopp, A. M., Monteith, M. J., & Mark, A. Y. (2006). Standing up for a change:
Reducing bias through interpersonal confrontation. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 90, 784–803. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.784
Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Chaiken, S. (1978). Causal inferences about
communicators and their effect on opinion change. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 36, 424–435. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.36.4.424
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2001). Terrorism 2000/2001. (Report no.
0308). Retrieved from http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/
terror/terrorism-2000-2001
Feygina, I., Jost, J. T., & Goldsmith, R. E. (2010). System justification, the
denial of global warming, and the possibility of “system-sanctioned
change”. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 326–338. DOI:
10.1177/0146167209351435
Fiske, S. T., & Neuberg, S. L. (1990). A continuum of impression formation,
from category-based to individuating processes: Influences of information
and motivation on attention and interpretation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances
in experimental social psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 1–74). San Diego,
CA: Academic Press.
Gifford, R. (2011). The dragons of inaction. Psychological barriers that limit
climate change mitigation and adaptation. American Psychologist, 66,
290–302. DOI: 10.1037/a0023566
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process
analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Hebl, M. R., Williams, M. J., Sundermann, J. M., Kell, H. J., & Davies,
P. G. (2012). Selectively friending: Racial stereotypicality and social
rejection. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 1329–1335.
DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2012.05.019
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hodson, G., & Esses, V. M. (2002). Distancing oneself from negative attributes
and the personal/group discrimination discrepancy. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 38, 500–507. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-1031(02)00012-4
House Committee on Armed Services. (1993). Policy implications of lifting the ban
on homosexuals in the military: Hearings before the Committee on Armed Services
(HJLS.C. No. 103–18).Washington,DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Kay, A. C., & Friesen, J. (2011). On social stability and social change:
Understanding when system justification does and does not occur. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 360–364. DOI: 10.1177/
0963721411422059
Macrae, C. N., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2000). Social cognition: Thinking categorically
about others. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 93–120. DOI:
10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.93
Marques, J. M., Yzerbyt, V. Y., & Leyens, J.-P. (1988). The ‘black sheep
effect’: Extremity of judgments towards ingroup members as a function
of group identification. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 1–16.
DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.2420180102
The ironic impact of activists 625
Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 43, 614–626 (2013)
Minson, J. A., & Monin, B. (2012). Do-gooder derogation: Disparaging morally
motivated minorities to defuse anticipated reproach. Social Psychological
and Personality Science, 3, 200–207. DOI: 10.1177/1948550611415695
Monin, B., Sawyer, P. J., & Marquez, M. J. (2008). The rejection of moral
rebels: Resenting those who do the right thing. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 95, 76–93. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.76
Montoya, R. M., & Horton, R. S. (2004). On the importance of cognitive
evaluation as a determinant of interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 86, 696–712. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.86.5.696
Morton, T. A., Postmes, T., Haslam, S. A., & Hornsey, M. J. (2009). Theorizing
gender in the face of social change: Is there anything essential about essentialism?
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 653–664.
DOI: 10.1037/a0012966
National Archives and Records Administration. (2011). Teaching with
documents: The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission. Retrieved from http://www.archives.gov/education/
lessons/civil-rights-act/
Nelson, J. A., Liss, M., Erchull, M. J., Hurt, M. M., Ramsey, L. R., Turner, D.
L., & Haines, M. E. (2008). Identity in action: Predictors of feminist selfidentification
and collective action. Sex Roles, 58, 721–728. DOI:
10.1007/s11199-007-9384-0
Olafsson, K. (2009, October 12). Environmental activist Mike Roselle. Time.
Retrieved from www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1929701,00.
html#ixzz15eA1Lykz
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies
for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator
models. Behaviour Research Methods, 40, 879–891. DOI: 10.3758/
BRM.40.3.879
Pryor, J. B., Reeder, G. D., & Monroe, A. E. (2012). The infection of bad
company: Stigma by association. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 102, 224–241. DOI: 10.1037/a0026270
Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (1991). Essentials of behavioral research:
Methods and data analysis. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Sedikides, C., & Gregg, A. P. (2008). Self-enhancement: Food for thought.
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 102–116. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-
6916.2008.00068.x
Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. R., & Sherif, C. W. (1961).
Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The robbers cave experiment.
Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Book Exchange.
Superson, A. M., & Cudd, A. E. (2002). Theorizing backlash: Philosophical reflections
on the resistance to feminism. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict.
In W. G. Austin, & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup
relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.
The Library of Congress. (2011). Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act of 2010.
Bill summary & status: H.R.2965. Retrieved from http://thomas.loc.gov/
cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR02965:@@@L&summ2=m&
Twenge, J. M., & Zucker, A. N. (1991). What is a feminist? Evaluations and
stereotypes in closed- and open-ended responses. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 23, 591–605. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.1999.tb00383.x
Walton, G. M., Cohen, G. L., Cwir, D., & Spencer, S. J. (2012). Mere
belonging: The power of social connections. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 102, 513–532. DOI: 10.1037/a0025731
White, P. H., & Harkins, S. G. (1994). Race of source effects in the
elaboration likelihood model. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 67, 790–807. DOI: 10.1037//0022-3514.67.5.790
Zárate, M. A., Shaw, M., Marquez, J. A., & Biagas, D., Jr. (2012). Cultural
inertia: The effects of cultural change on intergroup relations and the selfconcept.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 634–645. DOI:
10.1016/j.jesp.2011.12.014
Ziegler, R., & Diehl, M. (2011). Mood and multiple source characteristics:
Mood congruency of source consensus status and source trustworthiness
as determinants of message scrutiny. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 37, 1016–1030. DOI: 10.1177/0146167211410438
Ziegler, R., Diehl, M., & Ruther, A. (2002). Multiple source characteristics
and persuasion: Source inconsistency as a determinant of message scrutiny.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 496–508. DOI: 10.1177/
0146167202287007
van Zomeren, M., Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2008). Toward an integrative
social identity model of collective action: A quantitative research synthesis
of three socio-psychological perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 134,
504–535. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.504
626 Nadia Y. Bashir et al.
Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 43, 614–626 (2013)