Friends or foes? How activists and non-activists perceive and evaluate each other.

Little is known about how activists and non-activists perceive and evaluate each other. This is important because activists often depend on societal support to achieve their goals. We examined these perceptions and evaluations in three field experiments set in different contexts, i.e., student protests in the Netherlands 2014/2015 (Study 1, activist sample N = 190; Study 2, non-activist sample N = 145), and environmental protests in Paris in 2015 (Study 3, activist sample N = 112). Through a scenario method, we manipulated the motivations expressed for (in)action by a member of the other group (i.e., an activist or non-activist) and measured individuals' perceptions and evaluations. Findings showed that activists perceived a non-activist as selfish and felt personally distant to them, especially when a non-activist dismissed moral obligation for action (Study 1 and 3). By contrast, non-activists had a rather positive view of activists, especially in response to an activist communicating collective concerns for action (Study 2). Study 4 (N = 103) further supported this pattern of findings by showing that activists perceived larger intergroup differences than non-activists. We conclude that mutual perceptions and evaluations of activists and non-activists are asymmetrical, which may have (negative) consequences for mobilization for social change.

Introduction

In order to maximize chances of achieving social change, activists need to mobilize their fellow disadvantaged group members and gain broader societal support for their cause. Indeed, the political struggle between those who seek social change and those who oppose it, often entails a competition over support from the broader society [1, 2]. Against this backdrop, one of the main goals of demonstrations and protests is to reach out to and win the “hearts and minds” of those within the broader ingroup, as well as third parties [3, 4], because the potential success of social movements depends on a strong and positive bond between activists and their potential followers.

However, the literature suggests that activists and non-activists differ in their concerns and motivations. Activists are often seen as ‘idealists’, who are highly committed to the group’s cause; by contrast, the non-activists may be sympathetic to the activists’ cause, but do not engage in collective action [5]. This implies that activists may not share a common ground with non-activists, which may even make them reluctant to rely on non-activists to achieve their goals.

Little is known however, about how activists and non-activists perceive each other—as friends or foes. Importantly, the few pointers available in the literature hint in different directions. Activists sometimes see non-activists as potential allies and resources to be mobilized [6]. At the same time, they may also perceive non-activists as those who do not demonstrate sufficient solidarity with the group [7]. From the point of view of non-activists, some work suggests that activists may be perceived as ‘heroes’ or, quite differently, as ‘complainers’ [8, 9]. It is of both theoretical and practical relevance to examine how these groups perceive and evaluate each other—after all, negative relations between these groups may stand in the way of the change activists want to see in the world. We therefore conducted four studies that aimed to map the potentially different perceptions that members of these groups may have of each other.

Defining activists and non-activists

Collective action is commonly defined as any action undertaken by individuals on behalf of a group to achieve group goals [10]. The social-psychological literature on collective action identifies four key motivations to engage in collective action: individuals’ psychological ties with the group (i.e., group identification), perceptions of group-based injustice and the resulting feelings of anger, perceived violations of individual and/or group-based moral beliefs, and group efficacy beliefs [10, 11]. We use participation in collective action and membership in a social movement as the criterion to define activists and non-activists. Accordingly, activists are individuals who engage in various forms of collective action, such as protests, demonstrations, building occupation, etc. Moreover, some activists are formal members of political movements and they may also be involved in organizing and mobilizing others to take part in them [12, 3]. We thus consider both inexperienced, first-time protesters and long term, committed members of social movements as activists. Our definition circumvents the problem with the ‘activist’ label, because some activists may not necessarily endorse it prior to participation in collective action [13], or may even explicitly reject it [14].

Similarly, by defining non-activists as those who do not participate in collective action and/or are not members of political movements, we include those who may belong to the same social group as activists (e.g., ethnic, gender, religious group), as well as to third parties and/or general public. In the literature on political solidarity, they are referred to as the silent majority [2]. Importantly, we do not assume that non-activists are not necessarily uninvolved or passive, as they may still engage in individual actions that align with the activists’ cause (e.g., individual pro-environmental behavior), but they do not take part in collective action.

Moreover, prior research suggests that activists and non-activists have different motivational profiles. For instance, activists feel stronger psychological ties with their group and more so with their activist subgroup [15, 10]. In addition, they often feel morally obliged to address injustice [16, 17]. In contrast to activists, non-activists are more concerned with individual rather than collective goals, and focused on “rational” calculations of individual benefits and costs of participation [18, 6], than on moral reasons to act [19]. In general, activists are more likely to be driven by collective and moral motivations [16, 19, 11], whereas non-activists are more likely to be driven by individual and instrumental concerns [18, 5]. We opted against a motivational definition of activism, because activists’ and non-activists’ motivations may vary greatly depending on the context of collective action [20]. Additionally, our definition allows for the possibility that both activist and non-activists may communicate different motivations for their behavior, which may affect how they perceive and evaluate each other.

Mutual perceptions and communication of motivations for action

Examining mutual perceptions between activists and non-activists is an important question, because one of the key goals of collective action is to mobilize public support for the activists’ cause [3]. Furthermore, positive relations between activists and their potential followers are perceived to be the key to a movement’s success [21, 1, 2]. However, the existing work suggests that activists and non-activists may not always see eye to eye. For example, research on confrontation of discrimination suggests that those who address injustice are appreciated and receive support, at least from their own group [22]. Nonetheless, more often the confronters run the risk of being perceived as ‘complainers’, with their actions being evaluated as inappropriate [23, 8]. Moreover, members of the general public endorsing negative stereotypes of activists (e.g., perceive them as militant or eccentric) are less likely to adopt the behaviors they promote [24]. At the same time, activists may judge harshly and/or disidentify from their broader ingroup, if they perceive them as lacking commitment to the group cause [25, 26], or failing to show solidarity [27, 7]. This suggests that activists may perceive non-activists as too selfish (i.e., focusing too much on their individual interests, as opposed to group interests), whereas non-activists may see activists as complainers.

We propose that how activists and non-activists perceive each other depends not only on what they do (or not do), but also on the reasons they communicate for their behavior. Below we elaborate on the hypotheses for activists and non-activists separately.

First, non-activists may explain their decision not to participate by denying that the protest will have any effect on the power holders (i.e., instrumental motivation), or by denying the moral obligation to fight for social change (i.e., moral motivation). Previous research found that highly politicized individuals (e.g., feminists) identify less with other members of their group (e.g., women), if they do not moralize the activists’ cause [26], because denying moral basis for action goes directly against what activists believe in [16, 17, 19]. Faith in the effectiveness of collective action in affecting social change facilitates participation, however, even activists do not always believe in it [3]. Thus, we expect that activists will have a more negative view of a non-activist who communicates moral rather than instrumental reasons for inaction (Hypothesis 1).

Moreover, non-activists can justify lack of participation by communicating individual or collective reasons for inaction. Concretely, they may emphasize that their individual vs. collective presence will not have any effect or that they do not feel personally vs. collectively morally obliged to act. Framing inaction as a collective decision rather than an individual decision, should be judged more negatively by activists (Hypothesis 2), because it threatens more strongly the beliefs of activists who see themselves as acting for and on behalf of the broader group [5]. However, we also acknowledge the possibility that both framings may not be received well at all by activists. Indeed, in the context of pro-environmental behavior, for example, some environmental activist groups believe individual engagement and responsibility are essential in achieving social change [28, 29]. As a consequence, it is possible that individualized framing of inaction could be seen as equally opposed to activists’ beliefs as a collective framing of inaction.

When it comes to non-activists’ views of activists, we propose that non-activists will have a more positive view of an activist who communicates moral motivation for collective action in comparison to an activist who communicates instrumental motivation for collective action (Hypothesis 3). For example, prior work on confrontation of discrimination suggests that confronters who act out of self-interest are more likely to be perceived as complainers by perceivers than those who act out of altruistic or moral reasons [30]. Moreover, sociological research on mobilization and framing suggests that moral communication from social movements is more persuasive and successful [31]. Consequently, communicating moral rather than instrumental motivation for action should match better the expectations of who the activists are and lead to evaluations that are more positive.

Moreover, activists who emphasize collective rather than individual reasons (irrespective of whether they are instrumental or moral) for participation may be liked more by non-activists (Hypothesis 4). This is because activists are “entrepreneurs of identity” [32, 33], whose task is to define the audience as part of the common identity. Communicating shared identities signals inclusion, and can help activists define the non-activists as part of their group [21, 4, 1], which in turn should make them more popular among non-activists. Finally, prior literature on the negative relations between strikers and strike-breakers [27, 7], suggests that activists may be more likely to glorify their group and conversely disparage those who fail to act. Thus, we expect activists to perceive greater differences between themselves and the non-activists, by evaluating their own group more positively and the non-activists more negatively, whereas we expect non-activists to feel equally positive about both groups (Hypothesis 5).

Overview of studies

To test these hypotheses, we conducted a set of three field experiments with activists (Study 1 and Study 3) and non-activists (Study 2) that allowed us to experimentally vary the communication of moral vs. instrumental and collective vs. individual reasons for (in)action as expressed by the other group. In all studies, we asked participants to evaluate a fictitious member of the other group on three dimensions: sociability, morality and rationality. Moreover, we examined the psychological distance between activists and non-activists by asking the participants how personally close they feel to the member of the other group and whether they share the same group membership. Study 1 and Study 3 explored activists’ perceptions of non-activists and provided experimental tests for Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 2. Importantly, we emphasized that a non-activist supported the activists’ cause, but decided not to act for various reasons. This was done to eliminate the possibility that the effects are driven by the perceived differences in opinions, which was already shown by prior work [26], rather than motivations for inaction. Study 2 was conducted with non-activists, which enabled us to test Hypothesis 3 and Hypothesis 4. In Study 4, we approached both groups at the same time (i.e., activists and general public). We did not manipulate the motivations for (in)actions, but we examined the support for Hypothesis 5 by investigating how activists and non-activists evaluate both subgroups at the same time.

Study 1

Method

Participants and procedure

The sample consisted of 190 students attending the demonstration against government measures in November, 2014 in The Hague (see http://www.omroepwest.nl/nieuws/2715375/Studentenprotest-op-Malieveld-Den-Haag-4-arrestaties-en-Jet-Bussemaker-bekogeld-met-tomaten). 90% of the data was collected during the four-hour protest in The Hague; relatively small number of questionnaires was collected during the train ride with one of the student activist groups to The Hague. The response rate was high: 77% of the total number of protesters approached (i.e., 248) agreed to take part in the study. We did not determine a priori the sample size, but focused on getting as many participants as possible. The same participants filled out a second questionnaire that was created by another team of researchers from the University of Groningen. This questionnaire asked about activists’ emotions. We were not involved in creation of this questionnaire, and to our knowledge this work has not been published yet. The study was approved by the ethics committee of University of Groningen. All participants were given a written informed consent, which they signed before they took part in the study.

Three participants were excluded from the analyses: two turned out to be younger than 16 years and could not participate in a study without a parental consent according to the Dutch law; one person failed to fill out the survey completely. The sample was relatively of young age (Mage = 19.96; SD = 4.68, range 16–46; 51.9% women, 41.7% men, 6.4% did not disclose). The sample consisted mostly of less experienced first-time protesters (only 26.7% were members of a politically engaged student organization).

Materials

Manipulation. The participants were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions and were asked to read about a fellow student J. who did not come to the demonstration. The fictitious fellow student J. explained their decision not to come to the protest by referring to either moral or instrumental reason. Moreover, we manipulated whether the reason was communicated as an individual or a collective decision (collective framing is provided in the brackets). More specifically, in the two moral conditions participants read about J. who sympathized with the cause, but said “… I believe it’s not my personal moral obligation [our collective moral obligation as current students] to fight for an equal access to education in the future [for future students]”. In the two instrumental conditions, J. said “…I believe that my personal presence [our collective presence at the protest as current students] will not have an effect on the government’s plans for education in the future [for future students]”.

Character evaluation. We asked the participants to judge the fellow activist student on perceived sociability (i.e., adjectives selfish, egoistic, arrogant and social), morality (honest, moral and principled) and rationality (irrational, realistic and pragmatic). The term pragmatic was excluded from analyses, because majority of our participants did not seem to know what it meant. We used a seven point Likert scale (1- Not at all to 7 –Very much) for all items. The principal component analyses with Oblimin rotation extracted three weakly correlated factors (correlations ranged from |.14| to |.20|) reflecting the three dimensions, with eigenvalues larger than one, which explained 60.37% variance. The item social loaded on the moral dimension. We used the original items to calculate an average rating for perceived selfishness (items: selfish, egoistic, and arrogant; Cronbach’s α = .77), perceived morality (items: social, honest, moral, and principled; Cronbach’s α = .65) and perceived rationality of the non-activist (items: irrational [reverse coded] and realistic, r[180] = .26, p < .001).

Psychological distance to the non-activist. First, the participants rated how representative the non-activist is of the larger ingroup (i.e., all students), the activist group (i.e., the group opposing the government’s measures), and the adversary group (i.e., the group supporting the government’s measures). Second, we asked the participants to what extent they felt personally close to J.

Demographics. At the end of the survey, participants filled out the demographics: age, gender, education and political orientation (1-Left to 7-Right). The participants identified on average as moderate, but leaning to the left of the political spectrum (M = 3.36, SD = 1.67). We also had additional questions about participants’ perceptions of the issue and identification with the group (for more details please see Supplementary Materials), their motivations for joining (vs. not joining the protest), and their feelings towards the non-activist. The complete questionnaires and datasets for each study can be found here: https://osf.io/72yjc/.

Results and discussion

Character evaluation

We ran a two-way Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) with Motivation (Moral vs. Instrumental) and Framing (Individual vs. Collective) as between-subject factors with our three dependent variables. The analysis yielded a significant multivariate main effect of Motivation, Wilks’ Lambda = .95, F(3,180) = 3.02, p = .031, ηp2 = .05; but no significant effect of Framing, Wilks’ Lambda = .98, F(3,180) = 1.14, p = .336, ηp2 = .02, or interaction, Wilks’ Lambda = .98, F(3,180) = 1.13, p = .337, ηp2 = .02. Follow- up univariate analyses revealed only one significant main effect of Motivation on selfishness ratings, F(1,188) = 8.74, p = .004, ηp2 = .05. In line with Hypothesis 1, non-activist was perceived as more selfish in moral in contrast to instrumental conditions (Mmoral = 4.24, SE = 0.14 vs. Minstrumental = 3.65, SE = 0.14). There were no other effects. Overall, activists did not perceive the non-activist as particularly rational (M = 3.99, SD = 1.24) or moral (M = 3.75, SD = 1.11). Means, standard deviations and univariate analyses are reported in Table 1.

Table 1

Study 1: Student activists’ evaluation of a non-activist.

	Moral motivation		Instrumental motivation		Motivation	Framing	Motivation * Framing
Dependent variables	Individual	Collective	Individual	Collective
	(n = 50)	(n = 48)	(n = 44)	(n = 45)
Character evaluation:
Selfish	4.03 (1.32)	4.45 (1.46)	3.67 (1.32)	3.63 (1.30)	F(1,182) = 8.74, p = .004, ηp2 = .05	F(1, 182) = 0.91, p = .341, ηp2 = .005	F(1, 182) = 1.40, p = .238, ηp2 = .01
Moral	3.76 (1.20)	3.68 (1.32)	3.77 (0.87)	3.81 (1.01)	F(1,182) = 0.15, p = .698, ηp2 = .001	F(1,182) = 0.01, p = .909, ηp2 < .001	F(1,182) = 0.13, p = .722, ηp2 = .001
Rational	3.94 (1.30)	3.89 (1.23)	3.82 (1.36)	4.35 (1.00)	F(1,182) = 0.91, p = .341, ηp2 = .005	F(1,182) = 1.76, p = .186, ηp2 = .01	F(1,182) = 2.65, p = .105, ηp2 = .01
Psychological distance to the non-activist:
Represents all students	3.08 (1.48)	3.04 (1.67)	3.51 (1.61)	3.16 (1.46)	F(1,178) = 1.38, p = .241, ηp2 = .01	F(1,178) = 0.72, p = .397, ηp2 = .004	F(1,178) = 0.45, p = .502, ηp2 = .003
Represents activist group	2.04 (1.09)	2.13 (1.64)	2.56 (1.74)	2.25 (1.57)	F(1,178) = 2.27, p = .134, ηp2 = .01	F(1,178) = 0.16, p = .690, ηp2 = .001	F(1,178) = 0.93, p = .336, ηp2 = .005
Represents adversary group	3.65 (1.69)	3.55 (2.00)	3.26 (1.68)	3.32 (1.78)	F(1,178) = 1.38, p = .242, ηp2 = .01	F(1,178) = 0.03, p = .955, ηp2 < .001	F(1,178) = 0.09, p = .771, ηp2 < .001
Individual closeness	2.51 (1.53)	2.40 (1.48)	2.93 (1.53)	2.87 (1.50)	F(1,181) = 3.95, p = .048, ηp2 = .02	F(1,181) = 0.15, p = .701, ηp2 = .001	F(1,181) = 0.01, p = .927, ηp2 < .001

Unadjusted means (and standard deviations).

Psychological distance to the non-activist

Importantly, the activists thought that the non-activist was not a representative of the larger student group (M = 3.19, SD = 1.56), nor the activist group (M = 2.23, SD = 1.52). Rather, they saw the non-activist as someone representing the adversary group (M = 3.45, SD = 1.78). However, there were no effects of manipulations on these variables: Motivation, Wilks’ Lambda = .98, F(3,176) = 1.43, p = .232, ηp2 = .02; Framing, Wilks’ Lambda > .99, F(3,176) = 0.24, p = .869, ηp2 < .01, or interaction, Wilks’ Lambda = .99, F(3,176) = 0.39, p = .762, ηp2 = .01. There was only one significant effect of Motivation on personal closeness, F(1,181) = 3.95, p = .048, ηp2 = .02. The activists perceived themselves as more personally distant to the non-activist who communicated moral reason for inaction (M = 2.46, SE = 0.15) than to the non-activist who communicated instrumental reason for inaction (M = 2.90, SE = 0.16).

In sum, in line with previous research [25, 26], those who went to the protest did not think too highly of those who stayed at home. We found some, but weak, support for Hypothesis 1 such that using moral justification for inaction increased perceptions of selfishness and further decreased feelings of closeness. On the other hand, we did not find support for Hypothesis 2, because communicating the decision as an individual or a collective one did not seem to matter to activists. In Study 2, we turned to non-activists and investigated their views of those who went to the protest. Overall, we expected non-activists to have less positive views of activists who use individual or instrumental motivations to justify participation in the protest.

Study 2

Participants, procedure and design

The sample consisted of 145 students enrolled at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands. Two research assistants approached students in the canteens and libraries during last two weeks in January 2015. The average age of this sample was relatively young (Mage = 20.2; SD = 2.09, range 17–29; 65% women, 34.3% men, one person did not disclose their gender) and the participants were university students from various disciplines. The participants were not politically active and we excluded two students who were members of a political organization (one of them also went to the protest). Therefore, they fit with our definition of non-activists and differ from the sample of activists in Study 1. The study took about 5 minutes. The study was approved by the ethics committee of University of Groningen. All participants were given a written informed consent, which they signed before they took part in the study.

Manipulation. We adjusted the manipulations to reflect the motivation of an activist. The participants were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions and they read about a fictitious fellow student J. who went to the demonstration, because they believed “… it’s my personal moral obligation [our collective moral obligation as current students] to fight for an equal access to education in the future [for future students]”. In the two instrumental conditions, J. said “…I believe that my personal presence [our collective presence at the protest as current students] will have an effect on the government’s plans for education in the future [for future students]”.

Dependent variables

Character evaluation. We asked the same items as in Study 1. The principal component analysis with Oblimin rotation extracted two factors with eigenvalues larger than one, which explained 54.67% variance. Items pertaining to sociability and rationality loaded on the first factor, whereas the morality items (including item social) loaded on the second factor (the factors were moderately correlated, r = .38). We used the original items to calculate an average rating for selfish (items: selfish, egoistic, and arrogant; Cronbach’s α = .77) and moral scale (items: social, honest, moral, and principled; Cronbach’s α = .69). We decided to keep the rational scale as separate (items: irrational [reverse coded] and realistic, r [141] = .40, p < .001).

Psychological distance to the activist. We asked how representative was the activist of the broader ingroup (i.e., all students), the activist group and how personally close our participants felt to J.

Demographics. At the end of the survey, participants filled out the demographics and political orientation (1-Left to 7-Right). The sample was on average of moderate political orientation (M = 3.81, SD = 1.26).

A two-way MANOVA with Motivation (Moral vs. Instrumental) and Framing (Individual vs. Collective) as between- subject factors yielded a significant multivariate main effect of Motivation, Wilks’ Lambda = .93, F(3,137) = 3.59, p = .015, ηp2 = .07; again no significant effect of Framing, Wilks’ Lambda = .97, F(3,137) = 1.55, p = .205, ηp2 = .03, or interaction, Wilks’ Lambda = .99, F(3,137) = 0.67, p = .573, ηp2 = .01. Follow-up univariate analyses revealed an effect of Motivation on perceptions of rationality F(1,139) = 7.42, p = .007, ηp2 = .05, and an effect of Framing on perceptions of selfishness F(1,139) = 4.02, p = .047, ηp2 = .03. Specifically, J. was perceived as more rational in moral in contrast to instrumental conditions (Mmoral = 4.65, SE = 0.13 vs. Minstrumental = 4.16, SE = 0.13). Moreover, in line with Hypothesis 4, when decision to participate in the protest was framed as a collective rather than as a personal decision, the activist was perceived as even more selfless (Mcollective = 2.35, SE = 0.11 vs. Mindividual = 2.66, SE = 0.11). Means, standard deviations and univariate analyses are reported in Table 2.

Table 2

Study 2: Student non-activists’ evaluation of an activist.

	Moral motivation		Instrumental motivation		Motivation	Framing	Motivation * Framing
Dependent variables	Individual	Collective	Individual	Collective
	(n = 36)	(n = 35)	(n = 38)	(n = 34)
Character evaluation:
Selfish	2.56 (1.04)	2.46 (1.05)	2.76 (0.87)	2.25 (0.69)	F(1,139) = 0.001, p = .977, ηp2 < .001	F(1,139) = 4.02, p = .047, ηp2 = .03	F(1,139) = 1.80, p = .182, ηp2 = .01
Moral	5.17 (0.74)	5.25 (0.67)	4.98 (0.77)	5.08 (0.68)	F(1,139) = 2.23, p = .137, ηp2 = .02	F(1,139) = 0.55, p = .458, ηp2 = .004	F(1,139) = 0.01, p = .928, ηp2 < .001
Rational	4.56 (1.22)	4.74 (1.00)	3.95 (1.05)	4.37 (1.02)	F(1,139) = 7.42, p = .007, ηp2 = .05	F(1,139) = 2.83, p = .095, ηp2 = .02	F(1,139) = 0.42, p = .52, ηp2 = .003
Psychological distance to the activist:
Represents all students	4.19 (1.45)	4.89 (1.08)	4.22 (1.18)	4.56 (1.05)	F(1,139) = 0.57, p = .452, ηp2 = .004	F(1,139) = 6.55, p = .012, ηp2 = .045	F(1,139) = 0.74, p = .39, ηp2 = .005
Represents activist group	5.53 (1.08)	5.57 (1.42)	5.43 (1.04)	5.35 (1.30)	F(1,138) = 0.59, p = .444, ηp2 = .004	F(1,138) = 0.01, p = .93, ηp2 < .001	F(1,138) = 0.09, p = .764, ηp2 = .001
Individual closeness	3.83 (1.63)	4.34 (1.33)	3.53 (1.45)	3.97 (1.27)	F(1,139) = 2.02, p = .157, ηp2 = .01	F(1,139) = 3.98, p = .048, ηp2 = .03	F(1,139) = 0.02, p = .892, ηp2 < .001

Unadjusted means (and standard deviations).

Psychological distance to the activist

A two-way MANOVA on perceptions of representativeness yielded a significant multivariate main effect of Framing, Wilks’ Lambda = .95, F(2,137) = 3.70, p = .027, ηp2 = .05; but no significant effect of Motivation, Wilks’ Lambda = .99, F(2,137) = 0.44, p = .647, ηp2 = .01, or interaction, Wilks’ Lambda > .99, F(2,137) = 0.37, p = .692, ηp2 = .01. Follow-up univariate analyses revealed that the activist was judged as a more representative member of the broader ingroup (i.e., all students) in the collective conditions than in individual conditions (Mcollective = 4.72, SE = 0.15 vs. Mindividual = 4.21, SE = 0.14), F(1,138) = 6.55, p = .012, ηp2 = .05. Furthermore, the non-activists perceived themselves as somewhat more personally close to the activist when the communication emphasized the collective as opposed to individual motives for attending the protest (Mcollective = 4.16, SE = 0.17 vs. Mindividual = 3.68, SE = 0.17), F(1,139) = 3.98, p = .048, ηp2 = .03.

In sum, in Study 2 we did not find evidence that the activist was perceived as a complainer [22, 8]. On the contrary, the findings indicated, as expected, that the non-activists thought rather positively of those who went to the demonstration. We found some support for Hypothesis 3, because our participants perceived an activist who expressed moral obligation in contrast to instrumental motivation as more realistic. Overall however, expressing moral or instrumental motivation had very little effect on non-activists’ perceptions of activists. Importantly, and in support of Hypothesis 4, when an activist communicated collective motivations, they were seen as more psychologically close (both on an individual level, and as a more representative group member) to those who did not participate.

Interestingly, the findings of Study 1 and 2 suggest (perhaps unjustly) that activists have somewhat more negative views of non-activists than vice versa. Thus, in Study 3 we decided to focus again on activists, because movement building depends primarily on the activists reaching out to their broader ingroup or the general public for their support [1, 2]. Moreover, the findings of Study 1 may be limited due to our choice of context, participants’ characteristics and stimuli. We tried to address all these concerns in Study 3.

Study 3

We made several changes in Study 3. First, in Study 1, activists and non-activists belonged to the same group and presumably shared the same norms. It is possible that activists held a bitter grudge against those who did not show up, because their absence directly undermines the unity of the group in the face of adversaries, like in the case of strikers and strikebreakers [27, 7]. Perhaps, in the context of issue-based activism, like environmentalism [12], where there is no available group identity with clearly defined group norms about what group members should do or not do, activists may not be so harsh towards those who are not there. Furthermore, the reason why we did not find many effects of our manipulations in Study 1 may be due to our sample, which consisted of students without much experience with activism. Prior research finds that more ‘seasoned’ activists place higher importance on movement building than novices who are more concerned with influencing power holders [34, 3]. Hence, more experienced activists may be more understanding of those who do not take part in action than less experienced activists. To address these two issues, we changed the context to a pro-environmental protest in Study 3, and we reached out to a more experienced sample of activists.

Moreover, activists’ relatively negative views of non-activists in Study 1 may be due to our choice of motivations for inaction that emphasize concerns that directly violate activists’ beliefs. However, some non-activists may not show up at a protest, but still contribute to the collective goal by engaging in a range of individual behaviors, such as boycotting classes to support the student movement, or buying ecological products in case of pro-environmental movement [35, 36]. Hence, in Study 3 we included an additional justification for inaction, which reflects the preference for engagement in individual action over collective action as a mean to achieve the collective goal. This motivation should resonate better with the activist group, because it emphasizes taking personal responsibility to achieve social change. Thus, we expected that the activist would evaluate this subgroup more positively and especially in comparison to those who deny moral obligation to act.

Five research assistants approached people who took part in demonstrations and sittings in Amsterdam and Paris during United Nations Climate Change Talks in Paris in 2015 (COP 21). The participants were asked to participate in a study on environmental activism, and those who agreed received a link via email to the study, which was administered via Qualtrics. Thus, in contrast to Study 2, the participants filled out the questionnaire after the events were over. Due to the international character of this event, the study was translated to English, Dutch and French. The study was approved by the ethics committee of University of Groningen.

From the 710 email addresses we collected 162 individuals responded. The experiment was administered at the very end of a larger survey on environmental activism, reducing the final number of participants who took part in the experiment to 112. The broader survey included the Schwartz value questionnaire and various questionnaires on environmental behavior and identity, and this part of the data has been published [37]. This resulted in 50 participants dropping out, though well before the experiment was introduced, which suggests that the non-response may have selected for the most motivated participants.

76 participants answered the demographics questions (Mage = 30.19; SD = 9.08; range 20–67; 55.3% women, 36.8% men, 7.9% other). In contrast to Study 1, the sample was much more diverse and consisted of more experienced activists: the participants came from 10 different countries and majority of them (i.e., 73.7%) reported being an active member of an environmental organization for on average 4 years.

Manipulation. As in Study 1, the participants read about a person J. who cares about the environment, but still decided not to join the demonstrations because they did not feel (individually or collectively) morally obliged to fight against climate change vs. did not believe that (individual or collective) presence at the protest will have any effect on the political powers. In the two additional conditions, J. expressed that … ‘ I, as an individual [we, as people who care about the environment] would [should] rather focus my[our] energy on ‘being the change’ (e.g. grow my own food, not waste . . .) instead of trying to influence international and/or national politics’. Thus, the design was Motivation (Moral vs. Instrumental vs. Personal Responsibility) x Framing (Individual vs. Collective) between-subjects design.

Character evaluation. We used shortened version of the scales in previous studies to evaluate the character of the non-activist: selfish (selfish and egoistic, r [109] = .71, p < .001), moral (moral, honest, social, Cronbach α = .61) and rational (realistic and irrational [reverse coded], r[109] = .60, p < .001).

Psychological distance to the non-activist. We again asked to what extent the activists felt personally close the non-activist. Furthermore, as in Study 1, we asked to what extent the non-activist was representative of the activist group (i.e., those who care about the environment), and the adversary group (i.e., those who do not care about the environment). In addition to the broader activist group, we also specifically checked whether the non-activist was perceived as representative of those who gathered to protest the negotiations. Moreover, in order to validate our assumptions that given motivations for inaction are typically associated with non-activists, we asked our participants to evaluate the extent to which our fictitious character was representative of the general public. Lastly, we asked participants to judge whether the non-activist was an asset to the environmental movement (1 –Detrimental to the movement to 7- Beneficial to the movement).

Demographics. At the end of the survey, participants filled out the demographics and political orientation. The participants identified on average as leftists (M = 1.78; SD = 0.90).

A two-way MANOVA with Motivation (Moral vs. Instrumental vs. Personal responsibility) and Framing (Individual vs. Collective) as between- subject factors yielded two significant multivariate main effects of Motivation, Wilks’ Lambda = .78, F(6,204) = 4.42, p < .001, ηp2 = .12; and Framing, Wilks’ Lambda = .89, F(3,102) = 4.41, p = .006, ηp2 = .12, but no significant interaction, Wilks’ Lambda = .98, F(6,204) = 0.30, p = .936, ηp2 = .01. Replicating the findings from Study 1, follow-up univariate analyses revealed that the communicated motivations for inaction had an effect on perceptions of selfishness F(2,104) = 7.93, p = .001, ηp2 = .13, but also on the perceptions of morality of the non-activist, F(2,104) = 4.21, p = .017, ηp2 = .08. Using moral motivations to justify inaction was perceived as more selfish (M = 4.53, SE = 0.26) than using instrumental motivation (M = 3.74, SE = 0.25), p = .03, 95%CI [0.08, 1.51], or personal responsibility (M = 3.12, SE = 0.24), p < .001, 95%CI [0.71, 2.12]. The latter two did not differ significantly, p = .076, 95%CI [-0.07, 1.30]. Denying moral obligation was also perceived as the least moral (M = 3.88, SE = 0.19), followed by instrumental motivation (M = 4.16, SE = 0.18), and personal responsibility (M = 4.61, SE = 0.17). Only moral obligation and individual responsibility differed significantly p = .005, 95%CI [-1.23, -0.22]. Additionally, and in contrast to Hypothesis 2, individual framing was perceived as somewhat more selfish than the collective framing (Mindividual = 4.13, SE = 0.20; Mcollective = 3.47, SE = 0.21), F(1,104) = 5.28, p = .024, ηp2 = .05. Means, standard deviations and univariate analyses are reported in Tables 3 and 4.

Table 3

Study 3: Environmental activists’ evaluation of a non-activist: Means and standard deviations.

	Moral motivation		Instrumental motivation		Personal responsibility
Dependent variables	Individual	Collective	Individual	Collective	Individual	Collective
	(n = 17)	(n = 17)	(n = 19)	(n = 18)	(n = 20)	(n = 21)
Character evaluation:
Selfish	4.91 (1.43)	4.16 (0.81)	3.97 (1.84)	3.50 (1.54)	3.50 (1.68)	2.74 (1.45)
Moral	4.04 (1.03)	3.73 (0.98)	4.11 (1.13)	4.22 (0.85)	4.60 (1.15)	4.62 (1.24)
Rational	3.88 (1.84)	3.22 (1.45)	4.53 (1.59)	4.28 (1.50)	4.08 (1.54)	3.81 (1.35)
Psychological distance to the non-activist:
…represents those who care for the environment	3.29 (1.36)	3.00 (1.28)	4.11 (1.53)	3.94 (1.35)	4.80 (1.32)	4.81 (1.50)
… represents those who do not care for the environment	5.35 (1.62)	4.76 (1.99)	4.17 (2.15)	3.94 (1.59)	2.40 (1.76)	3.33 (1.96)
…COP protesters	1.59 (0.80)	2.06 (1.64)	2.11 (1.13)	2.56 (1.62)	2.40 (1.57)	2.48 (1.29)
…general public	5.00 (1.51)	4.29 (1.86)	5.17 (1.51)	4.67 (1.28)	4.05 (1.79)	3.76 (1.48)
Individual closeness	2.41 (1.62)	2.18 (1.33)	2.67 (1.61)	2.61 (1.46)	2.80 (1.74)	3.10 (1.38)
Hindrance-Benefit	3.00 (1.55)	3.29 (1.86)	2.67 (1.37)	3.22 (1.22)	4.30 (1.56)	4.43 (1.75)

Table 4

Study 3: Environmental activists’ evaluation of a non-activist: univariate analysis output.

Dependent variables	Motivation	Framing	Motivation * Framing
Selfish	F(2,104) = 7.93, p = .001, ηp2 = .13	F(1, 104) = 5.28, p = .024, ηp2 = .05	F(2, 104) = 0.11, p = .896, ηp2 = .002
Moral	F(2,104) = 4.21, p = .017, ηp2 = .08	F(1,104) = 0.08, p = .784, ηp2 = .001	F(2,104) = 0.37, p = .69, ηp2 = .01
Rational	F(2, 104) = 2.67, p = .074, ηp2 = .05	F(1,104) = 1.78, p = .186, ηp2 = .02	F(2,104) = 0.20, p = .821, ηp2 = .004
…represents those who care for the environment	F(2,105) = 13.10, p < .001, ηp2 = .20	F(1,105) = 0.32, p = .573, ηp2 = .003	F(2,105) = 0.11, p = .894, ηp2 = .002
…represents those who do not care for the environment	F(2, 105) = 13.09, p < .001, ηp2 = .20	F(1, 105) = 0.13, p = .908, ηp2 < .001	F(2, 105) = 1.75, p = .179, ηp2 = .03
…COP protesters	F(2,106) = 2.04, p = .135, ηp2 = .04	F(1,106) = 1.59, p = .211, ηp2 = .015	F(2, 105) = 0.25, p = .781, ηp2 = .005
…general public	F(2, 105) = 4.32, p = .016, ηp2 = .08	F(1, 105) = 2.78, p = .099, ηp2 = .03	F(2, 105) = 0.27, p = .848, ηp2 = .003
Individual closeness	F(2,105) = 1.70, p = .189, ηp2 = .03	F(1,105) < 0.001, p = .996, ηp2 < .001	F(2,105) = 0.30 p = .745, ηp2 = .006
Hindrance-Benefit	F(2,104) = 9.28, p < .001, ηp2 = .15	F(1,104) = 1.18, p = .28, ηp2 = .01	F(2,104) = 0.18, p = .837, ηp2 = .003

Unadjusted means (and standard deviations).

In contrast to Study 1, multivariate analysis on representativeness variables yielded a significant multivariate main effect of Motivation, Wilks’ Lambda = .66, F(8,204) = 5.93, p < .001, ηp2 = .19; but no significant effect of Framing, Wilks’ Lambda = .96, F(4,102) = 1.11, p = .357, ηp2 = .04, or interaction, Wilks’ Lambda = .96, F(8,204) = 0.59, p = .785, ηp2 = .02. Follow-up univariate analyses revealed a significant effect of Motivation on the extent to which the non-activist was seen as representative of the group that cares about the environment F(2,105) = 13.10, p < .001, ηp2 = .20, the group that does not care about the environment F(2,105) = 13.09, p < .001, ηp2 = .20, as well as the general public F(2,105) = 4.32, p = .016, ηp2 = .08. In line with the effects on character judgments, the non-activist who communicated moral motivation for inaction was perceived as less representative of those who care about the environment (M = 3.15, SE = 0.24), than the non-activist who communicated instrumental motivation (M = 4.03, SE = 0.23), p = .010, 95%CI [-1.54, -0.22], or the non-activist who communicated personal responsibility (M = 4.81, SE = 0.22), p < .001, 95%CI [-2.30, -1.02]. The latter two also differed significantly, p = .017, 95%CI [-1.41, -0.15]. The non-activists who denied moral obligation to participate in collective action was seen as the most representative of those who do not care about the environment (M = 5.06, SE = 0.32), followed by the non-activist who communicated instrumental motivation (M = 4.06, SE = 0.31), p = .026, 95%CI [0.12, 1.88], and personal responsibility (M = 2.87, SE = 0.29), p < .001, 95%CI [1.34, 3.05]. The latter two also differed significantly, p = .006, 95%CI [0.35, 2.03].

Moreover, the non-activist who communicated moral (M = 4.65, SE = 0.27) or instrumental motivation for inaction (M = 4.92, SE = 0.26) was perceived as more representative of the general public; the difference between the two was not significant, p = .474, 95%CI [-1.01, 0.48]. In contrast, the non-activist who communicated personal responsibility was seen as significantly less representative of the general public (M = 3.91, SE = 0.25), than the other two: p = .044, 95%CI [-1.46, -0.02]; p = .006, 95%CI [-1.72, -0.30]. However, the non-activist was not seen as representative of those who gathered at the protest, irrespective of the motivations communicated (M = 2.22; SD = 1.38), F(2,105) = 2.04, p = .135, ηp2 = .04.

The activists did not feel personally close to those who were not there (M = 2.65; SD = 1.52), but we did not find significant effects of our manipulations on perception of closeness. Lastly, we found a significant effect of Motivation on perceptions of the non-activists as beneficial to the movement, F(2,104) = 9.28, p < .001, ηp2 = .15. The activists believed that the non-activist who used either moral (M = 3.15; SE = 0.27) or instrumental motivation (M = 2.94; SE = 0.26) as an argument for inaction was a hindrance to the environmental movement; the two did not differ significantly p = .593, 95%CI [-0.55, 0.95]. The participants were somewhat more positive about the non-activist who communicated personal responsibility (M = 4.36; SE = 0.25) and this condition differed significantly from the other two: p = .001, 95%CI [0.49, 1.95]; p < .001, 95%CI [0.71, 2.13].

Replicating the findings of Study 1, activists disliked the most a member of the general public who denied moral obligation to act (Hypothesis 1), and they believed that both those who deny moral obligation or instrumentality are a hindrance to the movement. Interestingly, they viewed those who used personal responsibility as an argument for not taking part in classical activism as more genuinely supporting the cause. Nonetheless, they did not feel personally close to the non-activist irrespective of the reasons used to justify the inaction.

Together, Study 1 and Study 3 suggest that activists do not feel very close to non-activists. However, in Studies 1–3 we only examined the perspective of each group separately, and we did not directly compare the opinions of both groups. Thus, in order to directly test Hypothesis 5, we conducted an additional study where we asked the participants to evaluate both groups without manipulating specific motivations for (in)action. Based on our previous findings, we expected that activists would differentiate themselves from non-activists by evaluating their own group more positively than the non-activist group. In contrast, we expected non-activists to have a generally positive view of both activists and non-activists and to differentiate less between the two groups.

Study 4

Context and participants

One research assistant approached the protesters gathered in New York on June 17, 2017 to support the legislative that would outlaw nuclear weapons (http://www.icanw.org/day-of-action/), who were mobilized by a civil group called Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom. Due in part to the bad weather conditions, we managed to collect data from 22 activists present at the protest (Mage = 34.2; SD = 16.57, range 19–69; 63.6% women, 31.8% men, 4.5% other). On the same day, we collected the data from 81 Mturk workers (Mage = 32.5; SD = 10.22, range 20–65; 39.5% women, 60.5% men) living in New York, who did not participate in the protest. The study was approved by the ethics committee of University of Osnabrück. All participants were given a written informed consent, which they signed before they took part in the study.

Character evaluation. Participants were asked to evaluate both those who went to protest today and those who did not (in counterbalanced order) in terms of selfishness, morality and rationality using items used as in Study 1 and Study 2. We created two subscales that captured the extent to which activists were perceived as selfish (items: selfish, egoistic, arrogant; Cronbach’s α = .87) and moral (items: social, moral, honest, principled; Cronbach’s α = .85); and two subscales that captured the extent to which non-activists were perceived as selfish (items: selfish, egoistic, arrogant; Cronbach’s α = .85), and moral (items: social, moral, honest, principled; Cronbach’s α = .90). When the targets of judgment were activists, items irrational and realistic were significantly correlated when (r[101] = -.34, p < .001), but not when the targets were non-activists (realistic and irrational [reverse coded], r[100] = -.11, p = .263). We decided to run the analyses only using the item irrational.

Perceived psychological distance. We asked the participants to judge the extent to which both activists and non-activists were representative of those who believe nuclear weapons should be banned (i.e., the activist group) and those who do not believe that nuclear weapons should be banned (i.e., the adversary group).

Demographics. At the end of the survey, participants filled out the demographics and political orientation (1-Conservative, 7–Progressive). The activists identified themselves as more progressive (M = 5.91, SD = 1.63), than non-activists (M = 4.64, SD = 1.78), t (1,101) = - 3.02, p = .003. 90.5% of the activists identified as an active member of a political organization, for more than a year, in contrast to 24.7% of non-activists. We excluded the non-activists who identified as a member of a political organization from the analyses (the analyses remained the same if included those as well, see Supplementary Materials).

We note that due the unbalanced sample sizes, the findings of this study should be taken with caution. We ran a mixed effects ANOVA with Target Group (Target Activists vs. Target Non-activists) and Dimension (Selfishness vs. Morality vs. Irrationality) as within-subject factors and Participation (Activists vs. Non-activists) as a between-subject factor. The analysis yielded a significant effect for Dimension F(1.40, 121.83) = 52.68, p <. 001, ηp2 = .40, significant Target Group x Dimension interaction F(1.52, 121.83) = 27.40, p <. 001, ηp2 = .26, and most importantly a significant Target Group x Dimension x Participation interaction F(1.52, 121.83) = 14.23, p <. 001, ηp2 = .15. The main effect of Target F(1, 121.83) = 2.07, p = .154, ηp2 = .03, the interaction Target Group x Participation F(1, 121.83) = 1.52, p = .221, ηp2 = .02, and Dimension x Participation F(1.40, 121.83) = 1.16, p = .302, ηp2 = .01, were not significant. We used Greenhouse-Geisser corrected degrees of freedom, because the Mauchly’s test indicated that sphericity could not be assumed.

In line with our expectations, activists perceived larger differences between two groups than non-activists. Concretely, they evaluated their own group as more selfless (Mtargetactivists = 2.03, SE = 0.31 vs. Mtargetnon-activists = 3.44, SE = 0.33), F(1, 80) = 17.64, p <. 001, ηp2 = .18, and more moral (Mtargetactivists = 5.83, SE = 0.28 vs. Mtargetnon-activists = 3.58, SE = 0.29, F(1, 80) = 49.78, p <. 001, ηp2 = .38. In contrast, non-activists perceived the two groups as equally selfless (Mtargetactivists = 2.76, SE = 0.18 vs. Mtargetnon-activists = 2.90, SE = 0.20), F(1, 80) = 0.52, p = . 474, ηp2 = .01; and they thought the activists were more moral than non-activists: Mtargetactivists = 4.56, SE = 0.16 vs. Mtargetnon-activists = 3.92, SE = 0.18 F(1, 80) = 11.82, p <. 001, ηp2 = .13. There were no differences in perceptions of irrationality. Means and standard deviations are reported in Table 5.

Table 5

Study 4: Activists and general public views of both groups.

	Participants:
	Non-activists		Activists
Evaluations of Targets:	M	SD	M	SD
Selfish activists	2.76	1.46	2.03	1.35
Selfish non-activists	2.90	1.51	3.44	1.57
Moral activists	4.56	1.38	5.83	0.90
Moral non-activists	3.92	1.38	3.58	1.14
Irrational activists	3.02	1.78	2.62	1.69
Irrational non-activists	2.54	1.56	3.38	1.56
Psychological distance:
…activists representative of people who believe that nuclear weapons should be banned	4.97	2.03	6.30	1.13
…non- activists representative of people who believe that nuclear weapons should be banned	3.35	1.48	3.50	1.79
…activists representative of people who believe that nuclear weapons should not be banned	2.43	1.67	2.05	1.99
…non- activists representative of people who believe that nuclear weapons should not be banned	3.70	1.59	4.15	1.42

Unadjusted means (and standard deviations).

Perceived psychological distance

Mixed effects ANOVA yielded a significant effect for Dimension F(1,78) = 45.62, p <. 001, ηp2 = .37, a significant, a significant Target Group x Dimension interaction F(1,78) = 65.63, p < .001, ηp2 = .46, and a significant Target Group x Dimension x Participation interaction F(1,78) = 4.41, p = . 039, ηp2 = .05. Main effect of Target F(1,78) = 3.06, p = .084, ηp2 = .04, Dimension x Participation interaction F(1,78) = 2.74, p = . 102, ηp2 = .03, and interaction Target x Participation F(1,78) = 0.34, p = .562, ηp2 = .004, were not significant.

First, the activists perceived themselves as more representative of those who believe the nuclear weapon should be banned than the non-activists: Mtargetactivists = 6.30, SE = 0.42 vs. Mtargetnon-activists = 3.50, SE = 0.37, F(1, 78) = 31.90, p < . 001, ηp2 = .29. For non-activists, this difference was smaller: Mtargetactivists = 4.97, SE = 0.24 vs. Mtargetnon-activists = 3.35, SE = 0.20, F(1, 78) = 31.90, p < . 001, ηp2 = .29. Second, the activists thought that those who did not come are more representative of the adversary group: Mtargetnon-activists = 4.15, SE = 0.35 vs. Mtargetactivists = 2.05, SE = 0.39, F(1, 78) = 18,72, p < . 001, ηp2 = .19. Again, for non-activists, the absolute mean difference was smaller: Mtargetnon-activists = 3.70, SE = 0.20 vs. Mtargetactivists = 2.43, SE = 0.23, F(1, 78) = 20.43, p < .001, ηp2 = .21. In sum, the findings indicated that activists evaluated their own fellow group members as more selfless and moral than those who did not show up. The non-activists appreciated those who went to protests, but their evaluations of both groups were more similar. Even though the findings are limited due to the small sample of activists and the unbalanced design, the differences in evaluations were consistently larger for the activist group in line with Hypothesis 5. One of the biggest issues with unbalanced designs is the probability that the assumption of homogeneity is violated. This may not have necessarily been the case, because the standard deviations for both groups on all variables were similar and the tests did not indicate violation of homogeneity assumption. However, we recommend for future research to replicate the findings with a larger sample.

General discussion

The current set of studies aimed to answer the question how activists and non-activists perceive each other, and whether their mutual perceptions are affected by the reasons they communicate for their (in)action. First, as anticipated the mutual perceptions and evaluations of activists and non-activists were opposing: activists disapproved of the non-activists (Study 1 and Study 3), whereas those who did not act positively evaluated those who did (Study 2). Second, communicating different motivations for (in)action affected how non-activists (Study 1 and Study 3) and activists were perceived by the other group (Study 2). Supporting Hypothesis 1, communicating moral motivation for inaction was not appreciated by activists (Study 1 and Study 3). Framing decisions for inaction in individual or collective terms did not matter so much to the activists. On the other hand, supporting Hypothesis 4, when the activist communicated collective reasons for action, they were perceived even more positively by non-activists (Study 2). We did not find much support for Hypothesis 3 that communicating moral motivation for action is evaluated more positively than communicating instrumental motivation. Third, in line with Hypothesis 5, activists perceived larger differences between themselves and the non-activists than non-activists did (Study 4). We thus conclude that activists are more likely to distance themselves from non-activists than vice versa.

Theoretical and practical implications

The current set of studies contributes to the literature on collective action by illuminating a blind spot, namely the mutual perceptions and evaluations of activists and non-activists. The social-psychological theorizing on social change emphasizes that third parties or general public play a crucial role in driving social change processes, and that successful social change depends on the positive relations between those who act to improve group status and the broader society [1, 2]. We identify an intriguing asymmetry between the two subgroups in terms of their perceptions and evaluations of each other.

Overall, Study 1, 3 and 4 suggest that activists, defined as those who participate in collective and/or are members of political movements, perceive non-activists in a negative light, and this seems to hold across various contexts (i.e., student protests, environmental activists and anti-nuclear activists), and applies to both mature (Study 3–4) and less experienced activists (Study 1). These negative views were especially pronounced when the non-activists, defined as those who do not participate in collective and/or are not members of political movements, negated the moral obligation to take part in the collective struggle, which goes against activists’ core beliefs [16, 17, 19]. Moreover, Study 3 showed that activists believed that general public endorses selfish motivations (i.e., lack of moral commitment and denial of efficacy) to a higher extent than constructive motivation (i.e., preference to engage in individual action). Additionally, even when the reasons for inaction were not known (Study 4), or the non-activists engaged in individual action for the same cause, activists perceived a psychological distance between themselves and their audience. Negative evaluations and the exaggeration of the differences between the two groups may be the consequence of activists’ need for positive distinctiveness [38]. Prior work examining activists’ disidentification from the broader ingroup [25, 26] argues that it may prevent activists from securing strong ties with their audience. We echo this sentiment and suggest that activists may not fully tap into the support they may receive from non-activists.

Furthermore, the findings of Study 2 and 4 pointed out that third parties may actually be rather sympathetic toward activists. However, previous research on those who challenge discrimination warns against assuming that activists always have full support of the broader ingroup [23, 8], though the contexts described in those studies referred mostly to the cases of individual discrimination where the audience could not directly profit from the action. Importantly, the results suggest that the activists could harvest non-activists’ support especially by using collective and inclusive language. If those who seek social change act as “entrepreneurs of identity” [32, 33], they can potentially pull closer the audience they are targeting, and these strategies should be particularly useful during the recruitment stage of mobilization process [6].

Limitations

The cross-sectional design of our studies fails to capture the process of mobilization and movement building, which is more complex and dynamic than a single instance of collective action [6]. Moreover, activists and non-activists may change their views of each other after the opportunity to engage in a face-to-face interaction. For instance, both groups may gain a more nuanced understanding of each other’s decisions to take vs. against taking part in collective action. Research on opinion-based groups [39] suggests that interaction is important in the development of shared norms and commitment to a political cause. By using a longitudinal design to examine the interaction between activists and non-activists, future research can illuminate the mechanisms that may reduce the psychological distance between the two groups and foster the creation of a strong and unified movement.

Furthermore, our studies did not examine whether communicating affective motivation (i.e., anger at the unjust situation or lack thereof) influences non-activists’ and activists’ mutual perceptions. Emotions like anger and moral outrage were found to be the key drivers of participation in collective action [10, 11]. Nevertheless, communicating anger as a reason to participate in collective action is not likely to be perceived positively by non-activists. Anger may be interpreted as a signal of aggressive behavior, and such negative stereotypes lead to less support for activists’ cause among the general public [24]. On the other hand, a non-activist communicating lack of anger as a reason for inaction may be disliked by activists, because activists may interpret lack of anger as siding with the perpetrators. Future research should examine the impact of affective language on the relations between activists and their audiences.

Conclusion

The present research fills an important gap in the literature on collective action by looking at the relations between those who engage in active struggle against injustice and those who do not. We showed that the motives put forward as explanations for (in)action play an important role in bringing or further separating the two groups. Our findings have important theoretical and practical implications, as they pointed out that activists may potentially mobilize more support for their cause if they reduce the distance they feel towards those who do not take part in collective action.

Activists’ and non-activists’ perceptions of the issues in Study1 and Study 2.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Activists’ perceptions of the COP21 protest in Study 3.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Activists’ and non-activists’ perceptions of the anti-nuclear weapon protest in Study 4.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

The analyses with full sample in Study 4.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Differences between activists and non-activists in Study 4.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Study 4: Activists and general public views of both groups with full sample.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

4 Nov 2019

PONE-D-19-25808

Friends or foes: How activists and non-activists perceive and evaluate each other

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kutlaca,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

In addition to having independently read the manuscript, I have now received comments from two reviewers with expertise in the field of activism. As you can see below, both reviewers had positive things to say about your paper and differed primarily in the number of revisions needed for the paper to be publishable. In terms of my own reading of the paper, my opinion is a bit more in line with the comments from Reviewer 2. Specifically, I agreed that the theoretical basis for the hypotheses could be made clearer. I think clarifying the theoretical rationale would also make the hypotheses themselves easier to understand. Both reviewers also raised concerns about the samples of activists and non-activists that were collected. Reviewer 1 questions the extent to which we can be sure that the activist samples are in fact "activist" given that their inclusion is only based on one instance of activist activity. Reviewer 2 raised concerns about whether some of the comparisons between the activists and non-activists are valid (particularly in study 4). In terms of my own view, I shared these concerns about the samples used and also thought that some discussion is needed about the small size of some of the activist samples such as in study 4. To be clear, I don't think any of the issues raised either by myself or the reviewers are in any way insurmountable.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Dec 19 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Daniel Wisneski

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2.  Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

3. Thank you for including your ethics statement: University of Groningen

Study 1) ppo-014-054

Study 2)14100-N

Study 3) ppo-015-060

Study 4 ethics was obtained from the University of Osnabruck

Please amend your current ethics statement to confirm that your named institutional review board or ethics committee specifically approved this study.

Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”).

For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research.

4. Please ensure that you include a title page within your main document. You should list all authors and all affiliations as per our author instructions and clearly indicate the corresponding author.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This paper presents 4 studies examining how activists and non-activists view one another. The contribution is timely and novel. Very little work has examined these kinds of intergroup judgments, which are interesting both theoretically and practically. On the whole, the researchers seem to find that activists distance from non-activists more than non-activists distance from activists. This is particularly the case when non-activists deny moral responsibility for taking action. This asymmetry does have implications for how activists might engage (or not engage) non-activists in supporting the cause, potentially limiting the growth of social movements. It’s a nice set of studies, nice samples (of people engaging in collective action), and it fills a gap. I recommend the paper be published, after addressing the following concerns.

The patterns observed here are almost inevitably contingent on a whole range of factors—what is the ideology of the activists? Who is the target of activism? What is it’s goal? How do non-activists stand to benefit (or suffer) if the goal is achieved? How large is the movement? Is it radical or supported by large majorities of non-activists? For that reason, I am a concerned that about the way the paper presents activists and non-activists as “one-size-fits-all” labels, and suggests that the patterns observed here are generalizeable across activist contexts. To me, it seems more appropriate to consider how these evaluations emerge out of particular kinds of activist contexts. I think this general issue need to be raised and addressed in the intro, and in the general discussion, with particular reference to the claims about how activists perceive non-activists.

I think the authors also need to be a bit more careful with claims about how activists’ perceptions of non-activist might undermine the growth of the movement. That might happen, but we can’t actually be sure that the perceptions observed here actually DO result in behaviours by activists, or responses from non-activists that actually deter recruitment or more passive support. It might be worth qualifying those claims a bit more.

There is the implication that activists might have biased perceptions of non-activists, at list compared to the reverse. Of course, it might be that activists have perceptions that reflect a meaningful social reality, while non-activists bias there perceptions in a way that protects a superordinate or personal identity. Another way to approach the practical implications of the data is to suggest that activists might not fully tap into the support they might get from non-activists, given the rather positive impressions non-activists (sometimes) have of activists.

The activists samples are all based on people who participated in an action. Is it fair to characterize that sample as an activist sample? To what degree do we know that participants identified themselves as activists? If this is the only action they ever take, are they activists? I think the authors need to address the limitations of their samples in this regard, and the degree to which the activist label fits, and how this might limit generalizeability to other operationalizations of “activist”.

In the concluding paragraph, the authors suggest that activists might distance from non-activists to such a degree as to “redefine group boundaries”. What group are we talking about here, and where is the evidence for that?

Reviewer #2: How activists and non-activists perceive each other is a potentially interesting line of enquiry. However, the design and theorising around these studies needs to be clearer to shed any light. Following are areas that need most focus:

1. The hypotheses are not always clear (eg., H2b) and appear to be based more on assumptions than engagement with theory and evidence. For instance in relation to H1b it could equally be argued that in some interactional contexts activists might place a premium on individual responsibility to act (if you don't act who will). It would be good to see more consideration of counter-arguments and evidence as well as engagement with literature that does pertain to the relationship between activists and non-activists (e.g., around politicisation and movement building). Activists and non-activists are treated here as static de-contextualised categories which limits theorisation of the intergroup relationship.

2. Studies 1 and 2 show few significant effects and certainly don't warrant the strong claims made in this paper. The authors might want to consider the similarity of the two samples (contrary to the authors' assertions, participants in Study 1 were not Left -- they were at the centre of the scale and would more accurately be described as moderate - the description given to participants in Study 2 who were also towards the centre of the scale). Moreover, rather than very different populations, the activists were predominantly novices. What was most different was the context -- Study 1 was conducted at a protest where a shared identity would be salient.

3. The comparison of samples in Study 4 was equally problematic but for different reasons: 22 WILF activists compared with MTurk participants who were arguably unlikely to be part of WILF's movement potential (mostly men and no indication of their views on the activist issue) and who did not belong to a group that could provide the basis for self-categorisation.

4. Related to the above two points, the asymmetrical effects that have been found in the research could be explained in terms of group processes of differentiation on salient dimensions arising from self-categorisation for those at a protest (Study 1) and those belonging to a well defined activist group (Study 4).

5. The suggestion that this research shows that social change may depend on the relations between activists and non-activists is not warranted as it was not tested (top p.29); the suggestion that inclusion in the activist category requires that one participate in collective action (be an activist) seems tautological (p.29); and the claim that activists differentiated more clearly between non-activists in Study 3 compared to Study 1 is problematic given that they were only given the opportunity to evaluate different types of non-activist in Study 3.

6. Given that activist groups spend so much time and effort trying to understand non-activists for the purposes of recruitment and mobilization (certainly more than the latter spends trying to understand them) it seems naïve to conclude that what is needed is for activists to simply see non-activists as more like them. Surely the fact of recruitment and mobilization shows that matters might be more dynamic and complex. Whilst this research was not designed to consider real world complexity it would be good to see some reflection on this and the limits to validity of the findings.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

3 Feb 2020

Dear Dr. Wisneski,

Thank you so much for giving us the opportunity to revise the manuscript and my sincere apologies for the delay with revising the manuscript. We agreed with the very helpful feedback and thus followed your and the reviewers’ suggestions.

This means that, in the revised version of the manuscript, we included a more thorough discussion of the theoretical basis for our hypotheses in the General Introduction. Furthermore, we completely agree with your and the reviewers’ concerns about the sample limitations in our studies and we address this issue by a) providing a clearer definition of who activists and non-activists are in the General Introduction and more consistent operationalization of the two groups b) reflecting on how different contexts/samples of activists may lead to opposing results in the introduction to Study 3; and c) highlighting the limitations of our studies in the General Discussion.

Below, we address each of the concerns raised by the reviewers in more detail.

Yours Sincerely,

Maja Kutlaca, Martijn van Zomeren & Kai Epstude

Reviewer #1:

1) The patterns observed here are almost inevitably contingent on a whole range of factors—what is the ideology of the activists? Who is the target of activism? What is it’s goal? How do non-activists stand to benefit (or suffer) if the goal is achieved? How large is the movement? Is it radical or supported by large majorities of non-activists? For that reason, I am a concerned that about the way the paper presents activists and non-activists as “one-size-fits-all” labels, and suggests that the patterns observed here are generalizeable across activist contexts. To me, it seems more appropriate to consider how these evaluations emerge out of particular kinds of activist contexts. I think this general issue need to be raised and addressed in the intro, and in the general discussion, with particular reference to the claims about how activists perceive non-activists.

Response: We agree with the reviewer’s concerns and we reflect on this issue more specifically in the introduction of Study 3 (page 19-20). Prior research differentiates between specific contexts of activism such as structural vs. incidental disadvantages vs. issue-based activism (e.g., Curtin& McGarty, 2016), which are characterized by more or less established group identities (and associated group norms). The presence vs. absence of these identities may lead to more or less negative perceptions of non-activists. However, our findings are in line with prior research on relations between activists and the broader ingroup that may lack commitment to the cause (see Becker et al.,2011; Zaal et al., 2017): in our view, the negative evaluations of non-activists which we observe can be seen as complimentary strategy to disidentification from the broader ingroup found by prior research.

2) I think the authors also need to be a bit more careful with claims about how activists’ perceptions of non-activist might undermine the growth of the movement. That might happen, but we can’t actually be sure that the perceptions observed here actually DO result in behaviours by activists, or responses from non-activists that actually deter recruitment or more passive support. It might be worth qualifying those claims a bit more.

3) There is the implication that activists might have biased perceptions of non-activists, at list compared to the reverse. Of course, it might be that activists have perceptions that reflect a meaningful social reality, while non-activists bias there perceptions in a way that protects a superordinate or personal identity. Another way to approach the practical implications of the data is to suggest that activists might not fully tap into the support they might get from non-activists, given the rather positive impressions non-activists (sometimes) have of activists.

Response points 2&3 : We agree with the reviewer and we used the suggestion provided to now discuss in the General Discussion (pages 33-34) how the observed patterns may prevent activists from seeking the support from non-activists. We note that this conclusion also fits nicely with findings by Becker and colleagues (2011), as well as Zaal and colleagues (2017).

4) The activists samples are all based on people who participated in an action. Is it fair to characterize that sample as an activist sample? To what degree do we know that participants identified themselves as activists? If this is the only action they ever take, are they activists? I think the authors need to address the limitations of their samples in this regard, and the degree to which the activist label fits, and how this might limit generalizeability to other operationalizations of “activist”.

Response: We agree with the reviewer that indeed one instance of participation in collective action cannot be fully equated with activism. We now include a better definition of activism in the General Introduction (see pages 4-5). More specifically we use participation in collective action and membership in a political organization as criteria to differentiate between activists and non-activists (this is also in line with the existing literature, see Curtin & McGarty, 2016). Thus we included both novices and experienced activists, and we avoided the issues with the activist label (Drury et al., 2003), and the issues with defining activists according to their motivations, because they can also be context dependent.

Importantly, the limitation pointed out by the Reviewer only applies to the sample of Study 1, whereas the samples in Study 3 and Study 4 consisted of predominantly experienced activists who identified as long-term members of various social movements (for more details please see method section in Study 3 and Study 4 – we added this information in Study 4, which was missing).

5) In the concluding paragraph, the authors suggest that activists might distance from non-activists to such a degree as to “redefine group boundaries”. What group are we talking about here, and where is the evidence for that?

Response: We removed these too strong claims and now we discuss our findings in light of the support the activists may fail to garner to the fullest as suggested by the reviewer.

Reviewer #2:

1. The hypotheses are not always clear (eg., H2b) and appear to be based more on assumptions than engagement with theory and evidence. For instance in relation to H1b it could equally be argued that in some interactional contexts activists might place a premium on individual responsibility to act (if you don't act who will). It would be good to see more consideration of counter-arguments and evidence as well as engagement with literature that does pertain to the relationship between activists and non-activists (e.g., around politicisation and movement building). Activists and non-activists are treated here as static de-contextualised categories which limits theorisation of the intergroup relationship.

Response: We completely agree with the reviewer and we now include a thorough discussion of our hypotheses (see pages 6-7 in the General Introduction). We also acknowledge opposing predictions as suggested by the reviewer: personal responsibility is particularly important in the context of environmental activism, which is the case in Study 3. Lastly, we include the limitation of our cross-sectional designs which artificially reduces the definition of activists and non-activists to one instance of participation in a collective action (see Limitations on page 34).

2. Studies 1 and 2 show few significant effects and certainly don't warrant the strong claims made in this paper. The authors might want to consider the similarity of the two samples (contrary to the authors' assertions, participants in Study 1 were not Left -- they were at the centre of the scale and would more accurately be described as moderate - the description given to participants in Study 2 who were also towards the centre of the scale). Moreover, rather than very different populations, the activists were predominantly novices. What was most different was the context -- Study 1 was conducted at a protest where a shared identity would be salient.

Response: We agree that it is wise to tone down our conclusions more. We now refer to the suggestion made by Reviewer 1 about activists’ failing to fully tap into the support they might get from non-activists (see pages 33-34 in the General Discussion). We corrected the political orientation in Study 1. We note that although the sample in Study 1 consisted of novices and inexperienced activists, this was not the case with samples in Study 3 (pages 20-21) and Study 4 (page 28 – we added the information that was missing originally). Moreover, the findings of Study 1 were replicated in Study 3, which was conducted after the protest has already taken place (rather than on-site). This suggests that the context of protest may not be problematic for the interpretation of our findings.

3. The comparison of samples in Study 4 was equally problematic but for different reasons: 22 WILF activists compared with MTurk participants who were arguably unlikely to be part of WILF's movement potential (mostly men and no indication of their views on the activist issue) and who did not belong to a group that could provide the basis for self-categorisation.

Response: We agree with Reviewer’s concern and we mention the limitation of Study 4 more explicitly (see page 32). We included the questions about the extent to which both activist and non-activists in all studies endorsed the issue and identified with the group (we included this information in the Supplementary Materials). In Study 4 (but also in Study 2), the non-activist sample overall agreed with and supported the activists’ cause: the means were all larger than the medium scale point (please see Table S1 in the Supplementary Materials) therefore, they could have been part of the movement potential. To be consistent with our definitions of activists and non-activists, we excluded those M-turk participants who indicated that they were already politically active. Still, the sample now used in the analyses was relatively positive about the activists’ cause.

Moreover, in the experimental studies (Study 1 & 3) the manipulations explicitly said that a non-activist agreed with the activists’ cause to ensure that the non-activist could be considered as part of the movement’s mobilization potential. Therefore, the reason for negative perceptions could not be due to disagreement in opinions between activists and non-activists, but their reason not to act. In Study 4, we only mentioned those who were not there, we did not specify that they would disagree with the activists’ cause.

4. Related to the above two points, the asymmetrical effects that have been found in the research could be explained in terms of group processes of differentiation on salient dimensions arising from self-categorisation for those at a protest (Study 1) and those belonging to a well defined activist group (Study 4).

Response: We agree with the reviewer that this may be the case and also mentioned in the General Discussion that one explanation for activists’ responses to non-activists may be derived from their need for positive distinctiveness (please see pages 33-34).

5. The suggestion that this research shows that social change may depend on the relations between activists and non-activists is not warranted as it was not tested (top p.29); the suggestion that inclusion in the activist category requires that one participate in collective action (be an activist) seems tautological (p.29); and the claim that activists differentiated more clearly between non-activists in Study 3 compared to Study 1 is problematic given that they were only given the opportunity to evaluate different types of non-activist in Study 3.

Response: We deleted these conclusions and we only discuss how our findings indicate that activists may not fully tap into the support they might get. Regarding the comparison between Study 1 and Study 3 – in both studies the activists were asked to evaluate different types of non-activists. The design of Study 3 included an additional condition, i.e., engagement in individual action as the reason not to take part in the collective action. Moreover, we cite prior research that found that more seasoned activists care more about the movement building than the novices (Blackwood & Louis, 2012), which indeed might make them less judgmental towards non-activists. Thus, instead of discussing how experienced activists may be better at differentiating between different types of non-activists, we propose that they may indeed have more positive views and feel less personally distant. However, our findings do not necessarily support this conclusion: although the activists generally evaluated the non-activists who engaged in individual action more positively, similarly to Study 1 they did not feel personally close to non-activists irrespective of the reason they communication for inaction.

6. Given that activist groups spend so much time and effort trying to understand non-activists for the purposes of recruitment and mobilization (certainly more than the latter spends trying to understand them) it seems naïve to conclude that what is needed is for activists to simply see non-activists as more like them. Surely the fact of recruitment and mobilization shows that matters might be more dynamic and complex. Whilst this research was not designed to consider real world complexity it would be good to see some reflection on this and the limits to validity of the findings.

Response: We agree with the reviewer and we included this limitation in the General Discussion (see page 34).

Submitted filename: Response letter.docx

Click here for additional data file.

18 Feb 2020

PONE-D-19-25808R1

Friends or foes? How activists and non-activists perceive and evaluate each other

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kutlaca,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

I have now carefully read both your responses to the reviewers' comments and your revised manuscript. First, I would like to thank you for the care you clearly took in addressing the changes both I and the reviewers thought were warranted. I think the current manuscript is stronger and clearly exceeds the bar for publication in PLOS ONE. That said, I do think that the paper would benefit from one more minor change. Specifically, I still think that the description of the hypotheses in the introduction could be clarified. As it is currently written, the the distinction between the moral vs. instrumental justifications is clear, but I think readers will still have trouble following the  distinction between the individual vs. collective reasons for action/inaction. The opening sentence for the second paragraph on page 6, for example, does little to set up how hypotheses 1a and 1b differ. Given the importance of this section of the introduction for the rest of the paper, I think a little more could be done to make it clearer exactly how the different parts of the hypotheses (i.e., 1a vs 1b and 2a vs 2b) differ. Again, I know this is a very minor revision, but I think it would be beneficial.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Apr 03 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Daniel Wisneski

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

10 Mar 2020

Dear Dr. Wisneski,

Thank you again for giving us the opportunity to revise the manuscript. We hope we addressed your concerns regarding the theoretical distinctions between the hypotheses by providing clearer theoretical arguments for each one of them (see pages 6-8). Moreover, we felt our labeling of hypotheses as H1a & H1b for instance added to the confusion, because they could be interpreted as competing predictions, which is not the case here (therefore we relabeled them as Hypothesis 1 to 5). Moreover, the limitation section (page 35) now addresses another potential motivation for (in)action, namely emotions, which was not included in our research. Thus, we hope our manuscript is now better grounded in the social-psychological literature on collective action and will be of interest to the readership.

Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to hearing from you at the earliest time of your convenience.

Yours Sincerely,

Maja Kutlaca, Martijn van Zomeren & Kai Epstude

Submitted filename: Response letter.docx

Click here for additional data file.

12 Mar 2020

Friends or foes? How activists and non-activists perceive and evaluate each other

PONE-D-19-25808R2

Dear Dr. Kutlaca,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Daniel Wisneski

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

25 Mar 2020

PONE-D-19-25808R2

Friends or foes? How activists and non-activists perceive and evaluate each other

Dear Dr. Kutlaca:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Daniel Wisneski

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE