The struggle for social equality: Collective action versus prejudice reduction.

By Stephen C. Wright, Micah Lubensky. 2009

239 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f488bd716552ec80fe82d790675de4d0db8e41a6

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

The conflict of harmony: Intergroup contact, commonality and political solidarity between minority groups (2012, methodology): “In response to the item “The message I received earlier emphasized an individualistic/commonality approach to group relations,” participants in the among minority group members (Wright & Lubensky, 2008).”
How Does Intergroup Contact Affect Social Change? Its Impact on Collective Action and Individual Mobility Intentions among Members of a Disadvantaged Group (2015, background): “ultimately, contribute to social stability rather than change (see Dixon, Levine, Reicher, & Durrheim, 2012; Wright & Lubensky, 2009; see also Górska & Bilewicz, in press).”
Collective Action as the Material Expression of Opinion‐Based Group Membership (2009, background): “In a very perceptive chapter, Wright and Lubensky (2008) observe that prejudice reduction interventions have the potential to demobilize collective action.”
E pluribus unum: Dual identity and minority group members' motivation to engage in contact, as well as social change (2011, unknown): “Consistent with the notion that intergroup attitudes and social change motivation can be dissociated (Wright & Lubensky, 2009), Willingness to Engage in Contact with Whites and Social Change Motivation were not correlated, r(47)= .174, p=.23.”
Group-Based Shame and Guilt: Emerging Directions in Research (2011, unknown): “…and social cooperation with the perpetrator group and the (potentially foregone) gains from collective action and more confrontational strategies to gain equality and justice (Dovidio, Saguy, & Shnabel, 2009; Saguy, Pratto, Dovidio, & Nadler, 2009; Thomas et al., 2009; Wright & Lubensky, 2008).”
Included but Invisible? Subtle Bias, Common Identity, and the Darker Side of “We” (2016, background): “Majority groups generally prefer a one-group representation because it deflects attention away from disparities between groups and reduces subgroup identification, thereby reducing the likelihood of collective action that challenges the status quo (Wright & Lubensky, 2009).”
Implicit Attitudes and Discrimination Against People with Physical Disabilities (2011, unknown): “Prerequisite conditions for collective action by members of stigmatized groups to occur are, first, a strong sense of a shared social identity and, second, recognition of collective mistreatment (Wright & Lubensky, 2009).”
Reducing intergroup bias through intergroup contact: Twenty years of progress and future directions (2017, background): “Specifically, positive contact may undermine the motivation to challenge inequalities in part because an emphasis on commonalities reduces identification with the minority ingroup (e.g., Wright & Lubensky, 2009) and diverts attention away from group inequalities (e.g., Saguy et al., 2009).”
A paradox of integration? Interracial contact, prejudice reduction and perceptions of racial discrimination (2010, background): “Building on the work of Wright and Lubensky (2008), we wish to conclude by relating two rather different interpretations of our results, which capture some of the underlying tensions between “prejudice reduction” and “collective action” models of social change.”
The Single Factor Fallacy: Implications of Missing Critical Variables from an Analysis of Intergroup Contact Theory1 (2017, background): “Numerous studies demonstrate that minority members who have experienced the most intergroup contact are in general more reluctant to protest for change (Dixon et al., 2010; Saguy, Tausch, Dovidio & Pratto, 2009; Wright & Lubensky, 2008; for a review see Becker & Tausch, 2016).”
Acting in Solidarity: Cross‐Group Contact between Disadvantaged Group Members and Advantaged Group Allies (2016, unknown): “The argument here is similar to the one raised by Wright and Lubensky (2009) as to why cross-group contact might undermine collective action participation.”
Whites for racial justice: How contact with Black Americans predicts support for collective action among White Americans (2018, background): “Some scholars have asserted that empathy tends to promote social cohesion and prosocial behaviors, whereas anger promotes social change strategies such as collective action (Thomas et al., 2009; Wright & Lubensky, 2009).”
Challenging the Stubborn Core of Opposition to Equality: Racial Contact and Policy Attitudes (2010, unknown): “…have raised analogous concerns about the model of social change that underpins the contact hypothesis (e.g. Connolly, 2000; Reicher, 1986, 2007; Wright & Lubensky, 2008), including members of our own research group (Dixon, Durrheim & Tredoux, 2005), and there is a lingering scepticism about…”