Premium
Minority‐ versus Majority‐Status Group Intentions to Transgress the Law When Oppression Is Perceived
Author(s) -
Lobato Roberto M.,
Moya Miguel,
Trujillo Humberto M.
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
analyses of social issues and public policy
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.479
H-Index - 31
eISSN - 1530-2415
pISSN - 1529-7489
DOI - 10.1111/asap.12207
Subject(s) - oppression , social psychology , radicalization , psychology , collective identity , identity (music) , context (archaeology) , ideology , minority rights , politics , political science , law , paleontology , physics , acoustics , biology
Oppression, frustration, and humiliation are some of the most critical variables when predicting political violence. There are, however, other factors, such as group support and violent narratives/ideologies, involved in this relationship. Moreover, contextual and group characteristics should also be taken into account. Thus, we conduct an empirical study in the context of Catalonia versus Spain conflict, taking into account group status and other related variables proposed by the 3N model of radicalization. Based on the principles of significance quest theory and identity fusion theory, the following four hypotheses were proposed: (H1) fused individuals will be more prone to engage in different forms of progroup behavior, as well as (H2) more sensitive to collective losses of significance; (H3) the collective loss of significance will mediate the relationship between identity fusion and progroup behaviors; and (H4) majority/minority‐status will moderate these functional relationships. The results indicated that identity fusion predicted intentions of activism through perceived oppression in the majority‐ and minority‐status groups, while identity fusion predicted the intentions of radicalism through perceived oppression in the minority‐ but not in the majority‐status group. The theoretical and contextual implications of the findings are discussed.