TY - JOUR
T1 - Protesting youth
T2 - Collective and connective action participation compared
AU - van Stekelenburg, Jacquelien
AU - Klandermans, Bert
PY - 2017/12
Y1 - 2017/12
N2 - "Twitter protests" and "Facebook revolutions" imbue the coverage of contentious politics in news media and academic outlets alike. As long as such protests are not compared to conventional mobilized events it is hard to ascertain the supposed differences between connective and collective action. We report a study that does just that: we examine if it makes a difference whether people are recruited through self-organized rather than organization-centered routes. We surveyed participants and nonparticipants in both actions (N = 319), asking who participated in the respective action, how they were mobilized, and why they participated. Results reveal that in some ways the recruitment route does make a difference, while in others it doesn't. Recruits of connective action were lower educated, felt politically efficacious, and mainly mobilized via informal (virtual) mobilizing channels, while recruits of collective action were highly educated, politically interested, and mainly mobilized via formal mobilizing channels. Social embeddedness played a crucial role in both campaigns, but more so in self-organized actions: approving networks increase the chances of being asked, influenced, and motivated by significant others, while disapproving milieus decrease the chance of being asked, influenced, and motivated by others. Approving networks thus expand informal mobilization, the more so for self-organized connective action.
AB - "Twitter protests" and "Facebook revolutions" imbue the coverage of contentious politics in news media and academic outlets alike. As long as such protests are not compared to conventional mobilized events it is hard to ascertain the supposed differences between connective and collective action. We report a study that does just that: we examine if it makes a difference whether people are recruited through self-organized rather than organization-centered routes. We surveyed participants and nonparticipants in both actions (N = 319), asking who participated in the respective action, how they were mobilized, and why they participated. Results reveal that in some ways the recruitment route does make a difference, while in others it doesn't. Recruits of connective action were lower educated, felt politically efficacious, and mainly mobilized via informal (virtual) mobilizing channels, while recruits of collective action were highly educated, politically interested, and mainly mobilized via formal mobilizing channels. Social embeddedness played a crucial role in both campaigns, but more so in self-organized actions: approving networks increase the chances of being asked, influenced, and motivated by significant others, while disapproving milieus decrease the chance of being asked, influenced, and motivated by others. Approving networks thus expand informal mobilization, the more so for self-organized connective action.
KW - Connective versus collective action
KW - Political participation
KW - Public demonstrations
KW - Social media
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85038915392&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85038915392&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1027/2151-2604/a000300
DO - 10.1027/2151-2604/a000300
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85038915392
SN - 2190-8370
VL - 225
SP - 336
EP - 346
JO - Zeitschrift fur Psychologie = Journal of Psychology
JF - Zeitschrift fur Psychologie = Journal of Psychology
IS - 4
ER -