Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: The Ironic Impact of Activists: Negative Stereotypes Reduce Social Change Influence.

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,161

    The Ironic Impact of Activists: Negative Stereotypes Reduce Social Change Influence.

    Study: Everyone hates environmentalists and feminists, New research suggests people tend to hold negative views of political and social activists
    http://www.salon.com/2013/09/26/stud...nists_partner/ http://www.psmag.com/blogs/news-blog...ts-ewww-66918/

    Research article 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.
    FUQ Abstract European Journal of Social Psychology DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.1983 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1....1983/abstract

    Might Second Amendment activists be cautioned to avoid creating negative stereotypes of themselves? Apropos the black apparel, camo, drop-leg and radical appearance discussions here.

    I would link to the research article but it is still closely held. I'll add a SSRN Alert.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    It is advisable to consider one's image during advocacy. However, such advise is usually meant with you-can't-tell-me-what-to-do rhetoric, although no one actually is telling anyone what to do, just advising.

  3. #3
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    I can wear all black if I want, its my right!

    :trollface:

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,161

    Rummaging Wiley, found, Thinking about Arabs and Muslims makes Americans shoot faster

    Thinking about Arabs and Muslims makes Americans shoot faster: Effects of category accessibility on aggressive responses in a shooter paradigm
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1....1883/abstract
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,161

    Queer uses for probability theory, Converging and diverging views. E. T. Jaynes

    Could it be that these results are just as E.T. Jaynes might have predicted them, applying his evaluation of ‘Converging and diverging views’ of ‘Queer uses for probability theory’, Section 5.3 of Probability Theory: The Logic of Science?

    “Not only in political speeches and news reporting, but wherever we seek for information on political matters, we run up against this same obstacle; we cannot trust anyone to tell us the truth, because we perceive that everyone who wants to talk about it is motivated either by self-interest or by ideology. In political matters, whatever the source of information, our prior probability for deception is always very high. However, it is not obvious whether this alone can prevent us from coming to agreement.”

    “The initial portion of section 5.3 is reproduced below.”
    http://www.variousconsequences.com/2...ing-views.html
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  6. #6
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005
    People respond to consistent low intensity activism. The Virginia "don't tread on me" license plates, openly carrying a holstered handgun with neat appearance during daily routine, etc.
    Last edited by 77zach; 09-29-2013 at 08:45 PM.
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Bothell
    Posts
    586
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Study: Everyone hates environmentalists and feminists, New research suggests people tend to hold negative views of political and social activists
    http://www.salon.com/2013/09/26/stud...nists_partner/ http://www.psmag.com/blogs/news-blog...ts-ewww-66918/

    FUQ Abstract European Journal of Social Psychology DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.1983 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1....1983/abstract

    Might Second Amendment activists be cautioned to avoid creating negative stereotypes of themselves? Apropos the black apparel, camo, drop-leg and radical appearance discussions here.

    I would link to the research article but it is still closely held. I'll add a SSRN Alert.
    I think (without reading the article, just the implications from the snipped quote) that it's the perception of performance in advocating the issue. It doesn't seem to be rooted in efforts of compromise. For example: "You will not cut down this forest! We're chaining ourselves to the trees to prohibit you from logging!" rather than "Hey, don't clear cut the forest, take a larger parcel, and select 10% of the trees. Let the forest continually re-seed itself."

    The all-or-nothing approach that many advocates have adopted stinks because it eliminates options. When people don't have options, they're trapped and "survival" instincts creep up.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •