Modes of Ingroup Identification and Notions of Justice Provide Distinct Pathways to Normative and Nonnormative Collective Action in the Israeli–Palestinian Conflict

• Published date: 01 October 2020
• DOI: 10.1177/0022002720907660
• Date: 01 October 2020
• Author: Bernhard Leidner,Hema Preya Selvanathan
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Modes of Ingroup

Identification and

Notions of Justice

Provide Distinct

Pathways to Normative

and Nonnormative

Collective Action in the

Israeli–Palestinian Conflict

Hema Preya Selvanathan

1

, and Bernhard Leidner

1

Abstract

People on both sides of an intergroup conflict undertake various forms of collective

action to seek justice for their own group. Three studies investigated whether

modes of ingroup identification promoted distinct preferences for justice, which

subsequently shaped the form of collective action people supported. Among Arab

(Study 1, n¼148) and Jewish Israelis (Study 2, n¼294), we found that ingroup

glorification promoted a desire for retributive justice, which predicted support for

nonnormative collective action, whereas ingroup attachment promoted a desire for

restorative justice, which predicted support for normative collective action. Further,

during a period of conflict escalation (i.e., Palestinian protests at the Gaza Strip),

emphasizing retributive or restorative justice produced differential effects on the

links from glorification and attachment to nonnormative and normative collective

action (Study 3, n¼546). This research advances our understanding of when and

how collective action can escalate intergroup conflict.

1

University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA, USA

Corresponding Author:

Hema Preya Selvanathan, Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, School of Psychology, the

University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

Email: h.selvanathan@uq.edu.au

Journal of Conflict Resolution

2020, Vol. 64(9) 1754-1788

ªThe Author(s) 2020

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0022002720907660

journals.sagepub.com/home/jcr

Keywords

collective action, intergroup conflict, justice, group identification

In protracted intergroup conflict settings, such as in Israel–Palestine, people on both

sides often engage in various forms of collective action—which refers to actions

undertaken by a group of people to advance the conditions of their group. Collective

action can be extremely nonnormative in that they violate the norms of a society; for

example, Palestinians targeting Jewish Israelis through suicide bombings in their

struggle for self-determination, or Jewish Israelis targeting Palestinians by burning

buildings and killing civilians to defend their rights to an independent Jewish state

(Bishara 2002). Collective action can also be largely normative in that it conforms to

the norms of a society; for example, Palestinians marching down the streets to resist

forced eviction from their homes, or Jewish Israelis holding protests to assert their

right to live in settler areas (Marteu 2009). What social psychological factors lead

people to support nonnormative versus normative forms of collective action?

This question is important because scholars from various fields, including polit-

ical science, international relations, economics, and sociology who study intergroup

conflict have increasingly argued for a social psychological analysis of conflict (e.g.,

Hatz 2020; Kertzer and Tingley 2018; van Stekelenburg and Klandermans 2013).

For one, objective macrolevel factors, such as the occurrence of unitary events or

mere membership in a particular group, may not influence all individuals in a group

to the same extent (Lyall, Blair, and Imai 2013; McDoom 2012; Shesterinina 2016).

By focusing on the subjective perception of individuals, in the present research we

aim to identify nuances or variation of attitudes within a group. Additionally, while

conflict attitudes can be influenced by self-interest such as seeking material or

psychological benefits and coping with economic concerns (e.g., Friedman 2005),

group identities and group-based concerns are equally important in shaping how

people interpret and respond to conflict (e.g., Tezcu

¨r 2016; Sambanis, Schulhofer-

Wohl and Shayo 2012; for a review, see Kalin and Sambanis 2018). Relatedly,

scholars have begun expanding the traditional scope of security, going beyond a

state’s militaristic aspects to include societal security—which is based on defending

ingroup identity (Bilgin 2004; Møller 2003; Theiler 2003). In the Israeli–Palestinian

conflict, mobilization among both sides is rooted in competing historical narratives

about group identities (Kaufman 2009)—which makes it particularly critical to

understand group-based responses to conflict.

Thus, the present research aims to contribute to a social identity analysis of the

trajectory of conflict. In the context of the protracted Israeli–Palestinian conflict, we

focus on how Arab and Jewish Israelis demand justice (i.e., notions of justice) and

identify with their own group (i.e., ingroup identification) as a basis for explaining

their support for normative and nonnormative collective action. Specifically, we

propose two processes: First, believing the ingroup is superior and more respected

Selvanathan and Leidner 1755

compared to other groups (i.e., ingroup glorification) will promote a desire to punish

the outgroup for intergroup transgressions (i.e., retributive justice) which will sub-

sequently promote more support for nonnormative collective action (e.g., illegal or

violent actions). Second, feeling emotionally attached to the ingroup and wanting to

contribute to it (i.e., ingroup attachment) will promote a desire to restore shared

values that were violated during an intergroup transgression (i.e., restorative justice)

which will subsequently promote support for normative collective action (e.g.,

peaceful protests).

Collective Action

Social movement scholars have differentiated between various forms of collective

action. One such distinction is the extent to which collective action aligns with the

norms of a society (Becker and Tausch 2015; Tausch et al. 2011; Wright, Taylor, and

Moghaddam 1990). As defined by Wright et al. (1990), nonnormative collective

actions are those that fall outside the scope of existing laws, customs, and codes of

conduct in a society, such as violent street protests and terrorism. By contrast,

normative collective actions are those that fall within the laws, customs, and codes

of conduct in a society, such as peaceful street protests, sit-ins, and strikes. This

conceptualization overlaps with other taxonomies of collective action: illegal and

legal (Finkel, Muller, and Opp 1989), activism and radicalism (Moskalenko and

McCauley 2009), hostile and benevolent (Zaal et al. 2011), as well as violent

and nonviolent actions (Thomas and Louis 2014). Thus, normative and nonnorma-

tive collective action differ in terms of other elements, including the legal status,

intention, peacefulness, and extremity of an action. It is also important to note that

according to Wright et al. (1990), the normativeness of a particular action is defined

in relation to the broader social system rather than by the perception of the group

undertaking the action. In the present research, Arab and Jewish Israelis are sub-

jected to norms in Israeli society since it is the dominant social system within which

both groups live.

Although traditionally the literature has focused on the social psychological

predictors of normative collective action, scholars have also begun to examine the

predictors of nonnormative collective action. To understand the factors that predict

nonnormative versus normative collective action, prior work has investigated group-

based efficacy and emotions as two prominent pathways towards nonnormative and

normative collective action (for a review, see Becker and Tausch 2015). This

research has found that strong beliefs in group-based efficacy and feelings of anger

over injustice predict normative collective action. By contrast, lack of group-based

efficacy beliefs and, instead, strong beliefs in the efficacy of using aggression to

reach group goals and feelings of contempt over injusti ce predict nonnormative

collective action (Saab et al. 2016; Shuman et al. 2016; Tausch et al. 2011).

While there is prior research on how different forms of efficacy beliefs and

emotions shape distinct collective action tendencies, perceptions of injustice and

1756 Journal of Conflict Resolution 64(9)