The death of George Floyd on May 25, 2020, after a Minneapolis police officer kneeled over his neck for more than 8 minutes has reignited the fight against racial inequality. Worldwide, millions protest for social change, for Black lives. These protests range from peaceful demonstrations and petitions to more radical actions such as destruction of property.
In this context, much has been said on how to be a good White ally. However, addressing those who self-define as allies is just preaching to the choir. If social equality could be achieved by talking to those who are listening, there would be no need for movements such as #BlacksLivesMatter or #MeToo. The sad truth is there is arguably more resistance to than support for social equality. Protests are the result of this reality but also a way to change it.
In a paper in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychologyopens in new window, Cátia Teixeira, Russell Spears, and Vincent Yzerbyt examine the reactions of members of privileged groups to different types of protests. The focus on this specific audience is deliberate. Most CEOs and people in power are White men, who are currently responsible for approving and promoting organizational diversity. In addition, the privileged are more likely to resist change, as they have more to lose in both moral and material terms.
In a series of 10 experiments conducted in the United States, United Kingdom, Belgium, and Portugal, Teixeira et al. presented participants from privileged groups with media articles reporting collective protests by disadvantaged groups as a result of illegitimate discrimination (e.g., ethnic minorities, women, immigrants, and refugees). Half of the participants saw “normative” protests and the other half saw “nonnormative” protests.
The difference between the two types of protest was the extent to which they fit with the rules of appropriate protest in democratic societies. Normative protests are exemplified by marches, demonstrations or authorized strikes; nonnormative ones often involve illegal activities such as hacking or blocking roads.
Results showed that support for protest was generally very low. In addition, support was determined both by the type of protest and the participants’ level of group identification (i.e., their level of attachment to their privileged group membership). Those who identified strongly with the privileged rejected nonnormative protest more than normative protest. For those with low levels of identification, the type of protest did not matter.
The reasons for these results revolve around the anticipated consequences of normative and nonnormative protest. Nonnormative protest was perceived as more likely to damage the reputation of the privileged group than to actually lead to any gains for the disadvantaged; the reverse pattern was found for normative protest. Nonnormative actions were associated with higher attributions of blame to the advantaged (i.e., “What will the world think of us if we drove them to take these desperate actions?”).
These anticipated consequences explained the differences found in support for protest: Highly identified participants supported nonnormative protest less because it tainted their group’s social image. This was the case even if nonnormative protest was perceived to be less likely than normative to actually lead to social change.
The authors conclude that collective protest for equality may backfire in its mission to gather support among the privileged. Ironically, if protests are too effective in calling attention to the illegitimate inequality, privileged group members are likely to feel a threat to their image and consequently deny support for social change.
This work has important theoretical implications for the understanding of the psychological experience of privilege in the face of social change. It also informs activists and anyone involved in designing equality policies about how their actions might be received by different stakeholders.
Note: This article is in the Social Psychology and Social Processes topic area. View more articles in the Social Psychology and Social Processes topic area.