Sociopolitical ideologies as predictors of collective action across liberal and conservative domains: Injustice‐based anger, efficacy, and empathy as mediators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Social change can be spurred by collective action. Yet not all forms of collective action are in the name of social progress. People seeking to advance or oppose social progress can be ideologically driven to organize and push their agendas. In exploring psychological reasons for collective action, social scientists have focused mostly on social identity. Researchers have begun to study sociopolitical ideologies as another key motivator of collective action. Drawing on both collective action and sociopolitical ideology literatures, we investigate sociopolitical ideologies (right‐wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation) as predictors of collective action across politically liberal (MeToo movement, Climate Change) and conservative (Anti‐Abortion, Illegal Immigration) domains. Results from two American samples ( n = 681; n = 359) show that right‐wing ideologies relate to more collective action in politically conservative domains and less collective action in politically liberal domains. Between‐person differences in empathy, injustice‐based anger, and efficacy explain these associations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".