EuroJSocialPsych-2013-Bashir-TheironicimpactofactivistsNegativestereotypesreducesocialchangeinfluence.pdf

European Journal of Social Psychology, Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 43, 614–626 (2013)Published online 16 September 2013 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.1983

Research article

The ironic impact of activists: Negative stereotypes reduce social change influence

NADIA Y. BASHIR1*, PENELOPE LOCKWOOD1, ALISON L. CHASTEEN1, DANIEL NADOLNY2 ANDINDRA NOYES1

1Department of Psychology, University of Toronto, Canada; 2University of Waterloo, Canada

Abstract

Despite recognizing the need for social change in areas such as social equality and environmental protection, individuals oftenavoid supporting such change. Researchers have previously attempted to understand this resistance to social change byexamining individuals’ perceptions of social issues and social change. We instead examined the possibility that individuals resistsocial change because they have negative stereotypes of activists, the agents of social change. Participants had negativestereotypes of activists (feminists and environmentalists), regardless of the domain of activism, viewing them as eccentric andmilitant. Furthermore, these stereotypes reduced participants’ willingness to affiliate with ‘typical’ activists and, ultimately, toadopt the behaviours that these activists promoted. These results indicate that stereotypes and person perception processes moregenerally play a key role in creating resistance to social change. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

In 1964, the U.S. Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act,outlawing racial and gender discrimination (National Archivesand Records Administration, 2011). More recently, in 2010,President Obama repealed the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy,allowing openly gay Americans to serve in the military(The Library of Congress, 2011). These landmark eventsoccurred only after activists spent many years activelychallenging the status quo (House Committee on ArmedServices, 1993; National Archives and Records Administra-tion, 2011), illustrating that long periods of slow progresstypically precede social change. Such slow progress is at oddswith research indicating that many individuals believe that it isimportant, socially desirable and moral to address socialjustice concerns (Beattie, 2010; Nelson et al., 2008). Ifindividuals believe that social change is crucial and sociallyvalued, they should generally be supportive of and responsiveto the activists who advocate it. Yet although activistsenthusiastically strive to address social justice concerns andare at times successful in promoting social change (e.g. Czopp,Monteith, & Mark, 2006), they often encounter substantialresistance from the public (Nelson et al., 2008; Superson &Cudd, 2002). Ironically, it may be this enthusiasm with whichactivists promote social change that undermines their impact:Rather than admiring their determination to address criticalsocial issues, individuals may associate activists with negativestereotypes, viewing them as militant and eccentric. Accord-ingly, individuals may avoid affiliating with activists anddisregard their pro-change initiatives. We examined this directly.

To date, researchers have attempted to understand resistanceto social change by examining individuals’ perceptions of socialissues, attitudes towards social change and personality traits.

*Correspondence to: Nadia Y. Bashir, Department of Psychology, University ofE-mail: [email protected]

Researchers have assessed, for example, whether individualsavoid supporting social change because they deny or fail toperceive that a social issue or injustice exists (Gifford, 2011),perceive the issue to be personally irrelevant (Hodson &Esses, 2002) or believe that the status quo is acceptable (Morton,Postmes, Haslam, & Hornsey, 2009). In addition, researchershave examined whether individuals resist social change becausethey believe that it threatens positive aspects of the status quo(Kay & Friesen, 2011) or conflicts with their goals and beliefs(Feygina, Jost, & Goldsmith, 2010; Zárate, Shaw, Marquez, &Biagas, 2012). Finally, several studies have examined thepersonal characteristics that are associated with reduced supportfor social change, such as political conservatism and authoritari-anism (Agronick & Duncan, 1998; van Zomeren, Postmes, &Spears, 2008). Although this past research provides importantinsight into the theoretical basis for resistance to social change,one key element has been largely ignored: individuals’perceptions of the people who strive to achieve this change, theactivists themselves.

Indeed, even when individuals have perceptions of socialissues and social change that are conducive to change (e.g.favourable perceptions of feminism), they are often still reluctantto identify with those who advocate this change (e.g. feminists;Aronson, 2003). Furthermore, individuals view activists in avariety of domains negatively: Feminists, for example, are typi-cally viewed unfavourably as aggressive, unconventional andunpleasant people (Berryman-Fink & Verderber, 1985; Twenge& Zucker, 1991). Similarly, portrayals of environmentalists andgay rights activists in government reports and sociological textssuggest that individuals view these activists as eccentric andmilitant (Brown, 2007; Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI],

Toronto, 100 St. George Street, Toronto, ON M5S 3G3, Canada.

Received 22 September 2012, Accepted 20 August 2013

The ironic impact of activists 615

10990992, 2013, 7, Dow

nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.1983 by L

iberty University, W

iley Online L

ibrary on [30/05/2023]. See the Term

s and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com/term

s-and-conditions) on Wiley O

nline Library for rules of use; O

A articles are governed by the applicable C

reative Co

2001). Because activists, by definition, strive to effect change bypublicly criticizing mainstream practices, they may be seen ashostile, unconventional and unpleasant. This tendency toassociate activists with negative stereotypes may ultimatelyreduce individuals’ willingness to affiliate with activists andadopt the pro-change behaviours that activists espouse.

Specifically, because individuals strive to maintain apositive self-concept (Sedikides & Gregg, 2008) and considertheir group memberships to be important components of theirself-concepts, individuals typically desire membership in onlythose groups that they view positively (Tajfel & Turner, 1979).If individuals associate activists with negative stereotypes,therefore, they may avoid affiliating with activists whoconform to these stereotypes (i.e. ‘typical’ activists), whichmay in turn reduce the likelihood that individuals will adoptbehaviours that are characteristic of ‘typical’ activists. Thatis, because individuals have a strong need to belong andexperience social acceptance (Baumeister & Leary, 1995),they may avoid engaging in behaviours that would character-ize them as individuals with whom it may seem unpleasantto affiliate. Given that individuals who are merely associatedwith stigmatized others can face prejudice and social rejection(Pryor, Reeder, & Monroe, 2012), individuals may fear thatthey too will be stigmatized and rejected by others if theyaffiliate with ‘typical’ activists and perform behaviours thatare characteristic of such activists. Indeed, consistent with bal-ance theory (Heider, 1958), individuals may in part agree withsocial change ideologies but nevertheless avoid adoptingpro-change behaviours because the ‘typical’ activists whoadvocate these behaviours seem dislikeable. By rejectingpro-change advocacy, individuals can distance themselvesfrom individuals who are generally viewed negatively by soci-ety. In support of this possibility, evidence indicates that indi-viduals are less likely to adopt the opinions of stigmatized (e.g.Black or gay) versus nonstigmatized targets (Clark & Maass,1988; White & Harkins, 1994). Although these studies donot show that negative stereotypes of stigmatized targetsreduce individuals’ receptiveness to these targets, they areconsistent with the possibility that individuals avoid adoptingopinions espoused by targets whom they view negatively.Thus, individuals may at times resist social change, not neces-sarily because they have negative attitudes towards socialissues or social change as previous research has indicated(e.g. Feygina et al., 2010; Hodson & Esses, 2002; vanZomeren et al., 2008) but rather because they have negativestereotypes of the agents of social change.

In five studies, therefore, we examined whether stereotypesof activists enhance resistance to social change by reducingindividuals’ willingness to affiliate with activists and,ultimately, to adopt the pro-change behaviours that activistsadvocate. We first identified the stereotypes of two key activistgroups and assessed how these stereotypes affect individuals’willingness to affiliate with ‘typical’ activists (i.e. those whoconform to activist stereotypes) and ‘atypical’ activists (i.e.those who do not conform to activist stereotypes; Studies 1and 3–5). We then examined the extent to which activiststereotypes influence individuals’motivation to adopt pro-changebehaviours advocated by ‘typical’ versus ‘atypical’ activists(Study 2), because it affects their willingness to affiliate withthese activists (Studies 3 and 4). We predicted that individuals

would be more likely to associate ‘typical’ activists withnegative stereotypes, and consequently, they would avoidaffiliating with and, ultimately, adopting the behavioursadvocated by these activists.

PILOT STUDIES

We examined the influence of activist stereotypes onresistance to social change by focusing on two key activistgroups: feminists and environmentalists. We chose to examinespecific groups to show that, although there may be somedifferences in the specific traits that individuals associate withvarious activist groups, these stereotypes overlap considerablyand have similar implications for resistance to social change.Because researchers have not previously examined the traitsthat individuals associate with environmentalists and becausepast research on feminist stereotypes may not reflect currentperceptions of feminists, we first conducted a set of pilotstudies to identify current stereotypes of these groups.

PILOT STUDIES A AND B

Method

Participants in Pilot Study A were 13 male and 26 femaleAmericans recruited online via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk(Mage = 37.59 years, SD = 12.32) who received $0.20. Partici-pants in Pilot Study B were 49 male and 92 female undergrad-uate students (Mage = 19.44 years, SD= 2.02) who receivedcourse credit or $10.

Participants in Pilot Study A were randomly assigned to ratethe extent to which 12 ‘militant/aggressive’ (e.g. ‘aggressive’and ‘forceful’), 9 ‘eccentric/unconventional’ (e.g. ‘eccentric’and ‘unusual’) and 12 ‘personable’ (‘friendly’ and ‘pleasant’;all Cronbach’s αs> .91) traits, which were selected on the basisof past research on feminist stereotypes (Berryman-Fink &Verderber, 1985; Twenge & Zucker, 1991), were characteris-tic of either a ‘typical’ feminist or a ‘typical’ American.Ratings were made along 7-point scales anchored at 1 (notat all characteristic of a ‘typical’ feminist/American) and 7(very characteristic of a ‘typical’ feminist/American).

In Pilot Study B, participants assigned to one conditionrated the extent to which 12 militant/aggressive (e.g. ‘militant’and ‘abrasive’), 14 eccentric/unconventional (e.g. ‘eccentric’and ‘odd-looking’) and 12 personable (e.g. ‘pleasant’ and‘personable’; all αs> .81) traits were characteristic of a ‘typi-cal’ environmentalist. We note that these traits overlappedheavily with those used in aforementioned Pilot Study A butwere selected on the basis of representations of environmental-ists in sociological texts and government reports (Brown,2007; FBI, 2001). Participants assigned to a second conditionrated a ‘typical’ university student, an individual whom studentparticipants would view as a more mainstream member ofsociety, on the same traits. Ratings were made along 7-pointscales anchored at 1 (not at all characteristic of a ‘typical’environmentalist/student) and 7 (very characteristic of a‘typical’ environmentalist/student).

Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 43, 614–626 (2013)

ons License

616 Nadia Y. Bashir et al.

10990992, 2013, 7, Dow

nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.198

Results

Pilot Study A

Independent t-tests revealed that participants viewed bothmilitant and eccentric traits to be more characteristic of‘typical’ feminists (Mmilitant = 5.36, SD = 1.26; Meccentric = 4.67,SD= 1.29) than of ‘typical’ Americans (Mmilitant = 4.05,SD= 1.23; Meccentric = 3.18, SD = 0.91), ts> 3.25, ps< .003, rs.47. Personable traits, in comparison, were viewed as lesscharacteristic of ‘typical’ feminists (M= 3.55, SD = 1.29) thanof ‘typical’ Americans (M = 4.60, SD = 0.69), t(37) = 3.31,p= .002, r= .48.

3 by Liberty U

niversity, Wiley O

nline Library on [30/05/2023]. See the

Pilot Study B

Two participants who were asked to rate a ‘typical’ studentand indicated that there is no such thing as a ‘typical’ studentwere excluded. Thus, 49 male and 90 female participants wereincluded in analyses. As was the case for feminists, partici-pants viewed ‘typical’ environmentalists (Meccentric = 5.06,SD= 0.60; Mmilitant = 3.59, SD= 0.79; Mpersonable = 4.09,SD= 0.64) as more eccentric, more militant and less person-able than ‘typical’ students (Meccentric = 3.92, SD= 0.52;Mmilitant = 3.29, SD = 0.57; Mpersonable = 4.54, SD= 0.56),ts> 2.25, ps< .04, rs> .19.1

Term

s and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com/term

s-and-conditions) on Wiley O

Pilot Study C

Pilot Studies A and B indicate that individuals have negativestereotypes of two key activist groups: feminists and environ-mentalists. Given that the traits included in these pilot studieswere selected from previous research and scholarly texts (e.g.Brown, 2007; Twenge & Zucker, 1991), we used these pilotstudies as a basis for creating the stereotype measures usedin Studies 1–3. We also, however, conducted an additionalpilot study to verify that the traits identified in Pilot Studies Aand B are not simply an artefact of the specific traits includedin these initial pilot studies. We then used the traits identifiedin this additional pilot study to create the stereotype measurefor Studies 4 and 5. In Pilot Study C, participants generatedtheir own traits of ‘typical’ feminists and environmentalists.

nline Library for rules of use; O

A articles are governed by

Method

Participants were 228 Americans recruited online via Ama-zon’s Mechanical Turk (Mage = 33.75 years, SD = 11.71) whoreceived $0.60. There were 92 male and 131 femaleparticipants. Five participants did not identify their biologicalsex. Participants generated 20 traits characteristic of a ‘typical’feminist and 20 traits characteristic of a ‘typical’ environmentalist.The order of tasks was counterbalanced across participants.

1Participants may have viewed ‘typical’ environmentalists as less militant thanpersonable because they were reluctant to endorse the extreme items (e.g.‘criminal’) in the militant index. Participants were, nevertheless, more likelyto associate militant traits with ‘typical’ environmentalists versus ‘typical’students.

Results

As predicted, the majority of traits that participants listed asbeing characteristic of ‘typical’ feminists and environmental-ists were militant/aggressive and eccentric/unconventionaltraits. Table 1 contains the 30 most frequently listed traits foreach group. Specifically, feminists were described in termsof militant/aggressive traits, such as ‘man hating’ and ‘force-ful’, and with eccentric/unconventional traits, such as ‘behaveslike a man’ and ‘unhygienic’. Environmentalists were describedin terms of militant/aggressive traits, such as ‘militant’and ‘forceful’, and eccentric/unconventional traits, such as‘eccentric’ and ‘tree-hugger’. Participants listed additionaltraits describing feminists or environmentalists that did notfall obviously into either of these categories (e.g. ‘animallover’ and ‘Democrat’). Overall, however, the traits providedwere overwhelmingly negative, with only a handful of morepositive traits (e.g. ‘caring’ and ‘educated’) appearing oneither list. Thus, it appears that individuals have negativeperceptions of both feminists and environmentalists, viewingthem primarily as aggressive militants and unconventionaleccentrics rather than as pleasant and personable individuals.Notably, although we did not ask participants to describeeither environmental or feminist ‘activists’ per se, they spon-taneously ascribed this trait to both groups: ‘activist’ was oneof the top 10 most frequently listed traits for both groups.

STUDY 1

the applicable Creative C

Maintaining a positive self-concept is a key goal for individuals(Sedikides & Gregg, 2008). Thus, if negative stereotypes char-acterize ‘typical’ activists as militant and eccentric, individualsmay avoid affiliating with them. In Study 1, we examined thisdirectly. Participants in one condition read about a ‘typical’ fem-inist, an individual who promoted women’s rights by organizingprotests and challenging traditional representations of women.Participants in a second condition read about an ‘atypical’,personable feminist; this enabled us to examine whether partici-pants reacted negatively to all feminists or only to those who fitfeminist stereotypes. Control participants read about an individ-ual whose stance on feminism was not described (i.e. anundefined target). All participants then rated the extent to whichfeminist stereotype traits were characteristic of the target, as wellas their interest in affiliating with the target. We predicted thatparticipants would be less interested in affiliating with the‘typical’ feminist relative to the ‘atypical’ feminist and theundefined target, because they would be more likely to associatethe ‘typical’ feminist with negative stereotypical traits.

We also used this study as an opportunity to rule out potentialalternative explanations for our findings. Individuals who maybe implicated in morally questionable behaviours dislike ‘moralrebels’, people who appear to condemn the behaviour bydefending relevant social or moral values (Monin, Sawyer, &Marquez, 2008). Thus, individuals may express less desire inaffiliating with ‘typical’ activists, not because they associatethese targets with negative stereotypes but because they expectthese activists to view them as immoral for failing to be similarlycommitted to promoting social change. Alternatively, given that

Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 43, 614–626 (2013)

ons License

Table 1. Thirty most frequently mentioned traits describing ‘typical’ feminists and ‘typical’ environmentalists

Activist group Traits

‘Typical’ feminist Man hating (145), lesbian (133), unhygienic (95), angry (89), behaves like a man (87), unattractive (84), liberal (79),ambitious (73), loud (72), activist (72), mean (71), spinster (67), independent (65), forceful (65), assertive (64), whiny(63), abrasive (62), protester (57), competent (54), dresses like a man (53), self-righteous (51), bitter (49), overreactive(48), educated (47), strong-willed (45), strong (45), intolerant (44), irrational (42), annoying (42), bad dresser (42)

‘Typical’environmentalist

Tree-hugger (151), vegetarian (124), hippie (124), liberal (111), unhygienic (91), militant (89), eccentric (85), activist(82), caring (81), protester (79), overreactive (68), unfashionable (63), self-righteous (61), educated (60), drug user(53), hairy (52), determined (52), stupid (51), intelligent (50), zealous (48), nontraditional (45), outdoorsy (43),forceful (43), animal lover (41), intolerant (40), helpful (40), Democrat (40), annoying (40), crazy (37), irrational (36)

Note: Values in parentheses indicate the number of participants who listed the trait.

The ironic impact of activists 617

10990992, 2013, 7, Dow

nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.1983 by L

iberty University, W

iley Onlin

similarity breeds liking (Byrne, 1971), individuals may expressless desire to affiliate with ‘typical’ activists because theseactivists seem highly dissimilar to them. In Study 1, therefore,we examined not only participants’ tendency to attributenegative stereotypes to the target but also the extent to whichthey (i) believed that the target would view them as immoraland (ii) viewed themselves to be similar to the target.

2Stereotype traits items in Studies 1 and 2: radical, man hating, bitter, activist,aggressive, inflexible, argumentative, opinionated, outspoken, defensive,militant, preachy, hostile, forceful, nonconformist, confrontational, weird,strange, odd, ugly, eccentric, unconventional, nontraditional, unusual,approachable, fun, pleasant, friendly, popular, fashionable, social, cool andinteresting (the last nine traits were reverse-scored).

e Library on [30/05/2023]. See the T

erms and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com

/terms-and-conditions) on W

iley Online L

ibrary for rules of use; OA

articles are governed by the applicable Creative C

Method

Participants

Participants were 17 male and 45 female undergraduate students(Mage = 19.43 years, SD=4.99) who received course credit.

Procedure

Participants were randomly assigned to read a gender-neutralprofile of a student who represented a ‘typical’ feminist, an‘atypical’ feminist or an undefined target. Participants in theundefined target condition read about a target whose stanceon feminism was not described (e.g. ‘When my weekendsaren’t packed with schoolwork and volunteer activities, Iusually spend the day watching TV or hanging out at coffeeshops’). Participants in both the ‘typical’ and ‘atypical’ condi-tions read about a target who promoted feminism. However,whereas the ‘typical’ target used methods that were consistentwith the stereotypes of feminists (e.g. ‘I also organize ralliesoutside corporate and political institutions in the communityto pressure CEOs and politicians who don’t prioritize women’srights issues into resigning’), the ‘atypical’ target promotedfeminism in a nonstereotypical way, using nonabrasive andmainstream methods (e.g. ‘I’m involved in organizing socialevents at clubs and lounges to raise money for women’s rightsorganizations’). A separate group of participants rated theextent to which the ‘typical’ or ‘atypical’ feminist representeda ‘typical’ feminist on a scale anchored at 1 (not at all represen-tative of a ‘typical’ feminist) and 7 (very representative of a‘typical’ feminist). The ‘typical’ feminist (M= 5.40, SD= 1.69)seemed more ‘typical’ of feminists than did the ‘atypical’feminist (M = 4.38, SD= 1.48), t(39) = 2.84, p = .007, r = .41.

Next, participants rated the student on the 33 feministstereotype traits identified in Pilot Study A (e.g. militant,eccentric and pleasant [reverse-scored]; α = .93) along 7-pointscales anchored at 1 (not at all characteristic of the student)

and 7 (very characteristic of the student).2 Participants thenrated seven items concerning their interest in affiliating withthe student (e.g. ‘I can see myself being friends with thisstudent’; adapted from Montoya & Horton, 2004; α= .89)along 7-point scales anchored at 1 (STRONGLY DISAGREE)and 7 (STRONGLY DISAGREE). Last, participants rated theextent to which they thought the student would view them asimmoral (‘If he/she knew me, the student I read about wouldthink that I am …’ [reverse-scored]; modified from Minson& Monin, 2012) and the extent to the student was similar tothem (‘The student I read about is…’). These ratings weremade along 7-point scales anchored at 1 (not at all moral/notat all similar to me) and 7 (very moral/very similar to me).

Analytic Strategy

We argue that individuals avoid affiliating with and adoptingthe behaviours advocated by ‘typical’ activists relative to‘atypical’ activists and undefined targets because they areparticularly likely to associate negative activist stereotypeswith only those targets that are perceived to be ‘typical’members of the group defined by these stereotypes (i.e. ‘typical’activists). Although perceivers may attribute some of thesestereotypical traits to the ‘atypical’ activists and undefinedtargets as well (because these traits are not necessarily uniqueto activists), we predicted that they would not do so to an extentthat would elicit the same negative reactions as those elicited bythe ‘typical’ activists. Given this specific hypothesis regardingindividuals’ reactions to different types of activists, weconducted planned contrasts to compare ratings of ‘typical’activists with those of the ‘atypical’ activists and undefinedtargets (Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1991). This procedure allowedus to minimize the familywise error rate of our statistical testsby reducing the number of pairwise comparisons conducted.We used this approach as our primary analytic strategy in allstudies. Within a given study, degrees of freedom may differslightly across analyses because of missing data.

Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 43, 614–626 (2013)

ons License

Table 2. Mean ratings of moral reproach and perceived similarityin Study 1

‘Typical’activist

‘Atypical’activist

Undefinedtarget

Moral reproach 4.27 (1.45) a 3.30 (1.30) b 2.95 (0.89) b

Perceived similarity 2.45 (1.26) a 3.10 (1.45) a, b 3.45 (1.28) b

Note: Standard deviations are in parentheses. Means within the same row withdifferent lowercase letters are significantly different at p< .05.

618 Nadia Y. Bashir et al.

10990992, 2013, 7, Dow

nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.1983 by L

ibe

Results

Stereotypical Traits

An analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed a significant effectof target on stereotypical traits, F(2, 59) = 34.14, p< .001,r= .46. The critical planned contrast comparing ratings of the‘typical’ feminist (2) with those of the ‘atypical’ feminist (�1)and undefined target (�1) indicated that participants attributedmore stereotypical feminist traits to the ‘typical’ feminist(M=5.08, SD=0.73) than to the ‘atypical’ feminist (M=4.34,SD = 0.45) and undefined target (M = 3.60, SD = 0.50),t(59) = 7.19, p< .001, r = .68. Participants also attributedmore stereotypical traits to the ‘atypical’ feminist versusundefined target, t(59) = 4.07, p< .001, r = .47.

rty University, W

iley Online L

ibrary on [30/05/2023]. See the Term

s and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com/term

s-and-conditions) on Wiley O

nline Library for rules of use; O

A articles are go

Affiliation

An ANOVA revealed a significant target effect on affiliation,F(2, 59) = 4.19, p= .02, r= .35. Participants were lessinterested in affiliating with the ‘typical’ feminist (M = 3.82,SD=1.42) than with the ‘atypical’ feminist (M=4.29, SD=0.86)and undefined target (M=4.79, SD=0.82), t(59) =�2.49, p= .02,r= .31. Ratings of the ‘atypical’ feminist and undefined target didnot differ significantly, t(59) = 1.48, p= .14, r= .19.3

Mediation Analysis

We argue that individuals avoid affiliating with ‘typical’ activistsbecause they associate them with negative stereotypes rather thanbecause they expect to be reproached by ‘typical’ activists or viewthemselves as dissimilar to ‘typical’ activists (see Table 2 fordescriptive statistics for moral reproach and perceived similarity).We therefore tested a parallel multiple mediator model with5000 bootstrapped resamples (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). Givenour focus on comparing ‘typical’ activists with ‘atypical’ activistsand undefined targets, we converted our target variable to a dichot-omous variable coded (0) ‘atypical’ feminist/undefined target and(1) ‘typical’ feminist. Results revealed that the 95% bias-correctedconfidence interval (CI) [�1.81, �0.65] of the indirect effect oftarget on affiliation through stereotypical traits did not containzero. The indirect effects through moral reproach (95% CI[�0.23, .23]) and perceived similarity (95% CI [�0.39, 0.00]),in comparison, were nonsignificant. Thus, stereotypical targetperceptions mediated the effect of target on affiliation, whereasanticipated moral reproach and perceived similarity did not.4

Discussion

Participants expressed less desire to affiliate with the ‘typical’feminist relative to the ‘atypical’ feminist and undefined targetbecause they associated the ‘typical’ feminist with more

3We provide additional information regarding effect sizes for comparisonsbetween individual conditions in a meta-analysis following Study 5.4Participants in all studies rated the ‘typical’ activist as more militant,ps< .001, more eccentric, ps< .07, and less personable, ps< .03, than theother targets. Not surprisingly, therefore, we found the same pattern of medi-ation results when we reran these analyses and replaced the overall stereotypesindex with an index of only the militant, eccentric or personable traits.

negative stereotypical traits. Furthermore, participants’ stereo-typical perceptions of the ‘typical’ feminist reduced their will-ingness to affiliate with this target over and above the influenceof moral reproach and perceived similarity. Thus, the presentfindings provide evidence that stereotypes of activists haveimportant implications for individuals’ reactions to activists.

STUDY 2

verned by the applicable Creative C

Study 1 shows that individuals avoid affiliating with activistsbecause they associate them with negative stereotypes. Thismay have crucial implications for the extent to which activistshave opportunities to transmit pro-change goals and values toothers (Cohen, 2003; Walton, Cohen, Cwir, & Spencer,2012). In Study 2, we directly examined the impact of negativeactivist stereotypes on how receptive individuals are toactivists’ initiatives to promote social change.

Method

Participants

Participants were 90 undergraduate students who receivedcourse credit. One participant who provided the sameresponse to all behavioural intentions items and whose scoreon this measure was more than three standard deviationsbelow the mean was excluded. Accordingly, 46 male and43 female participants (Mage = 18.63 years, SD = 1.98) wereincluded in analyses.

Procedure

Participants were randomly assigned to read a bogus profileof a journalist who represented a ‘typical’ feminist, an‘atypical’ feminist or an undefined target. These profileswere very similar to those used in Study 1 but describedthe target as a journalist rather than as a student to providea rationale for subsequently presenting participants with anarticle written by the target. After reading the profile,participants read an article about the need for individuals toactively support women’s rights concerns:

women still face enormous obstacles: They are undervaluedin the workplace, objectified in the media, and physicallyassaulted at alarmingly high rates. Furthermore, womenliving in less tolerant regions of the world still requiresubstantial international help to achieve even very basic legalrights and to ensure their physical safety.

Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 43, 614–626 (2013)

ons License

5To provide evidence that individuals’ stereotypes of activists influence theirsupport for social change over and above the influence of their beliefs aboutsocial issues, we verified that stereotypical traits significantly mediated theeffect of target on behavioural intentions in Study 2 (95% CI [�0.54, �0.06]),even when controlling for participants’ beliefs that gender inequality is still aserious problem.

The ironic impact of activists 619

10990992, 2013, 7, Dow

nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.1983 by L

iberty University, W

iley Online L

ibrary on [30/05/2023]. See the Term

s and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com/term

s-and-conditions) on Wiley O

nline Library for rules of use; O

A articles are governed by the applicable C

reative Co

All participants read the same article, but they were toldthat it had been written by the journalist whom they had justread about. Next, participants completed the stereotypicaltraits measure used in Study 1 (α= .85). They then rated 22items concerning their intentions to perform pro-genderequality behaviours (‘I plan to get involved in pro-women’srights initiatives at my school or in my community’; adaptedfrom Bashir, Lockwood, Dolderman, Sarkissian, & Quick,2011; α = .96) along 7-point scales anchored at 1 (stronglydisagree) and 7 (strongly agree). Last, to verify that par-ticipants did in fact view the ‘typical’ feminist to be more‘typical’ of feminists than the other targets, participantsrated the extent to which the author of the article fitcommon stereotypes of feminists along a 7-point scaleanchored at 1 (does not fit stereotypes of feminists) and7 (fits stereotypes of feminists).

Results

Typicality Manipulation Check

An ANOVA on the single-item typicality rating revealed asignificant effect of target, F(2, 86) = 8.66, p< .001, r= .41. Par-ticipants’ typicality ratings were higher for the ‘typical’ feminist(M=6.03, SD=0.84) than for the ‘atypical’ feminist (M=5.54,SD=1.14), t(86) = 1.74, p= .09, r= .18, and the undefined target(M=4.87, SD=1.28), t(86) = 4.15, p< .001, r= .41.

Stereotypical Traits

An ANOVA revealed a significant target effect on stereo-typical traits, F(2, 86) = 11.84, p< .001, r = .46. Participantsattributed more stereotypical feminist traits to the ‘typical’feminist (M = 4.90, SD = 0.45) than to the ‘atypical’ feminist(M = 4.57, SD = 0.58) and the undefined target (M = 4.28,SD = 0.46), t(86) = 4.27, p< .001, r = .42. Participants alsoattributed more feminist traits to the ‘atypical’ feministversus undefined target, t(86) = 2.22, p = .03, r = .23.

Behavioural Intentions

An ANOVA revealed a marginal overall effect of target onbehavioural intentions, F(2, 86) = 2.35, p = .10, r = .23. Thecritical planned contrast comparing the ‘typical’ feminist withthe ‘atypical’ feminist and undefined target, however, wassignificant: Participants were less motivated to adopt pro-equality behaviours when these behaviours were advocatedby the ‘typical’ feminist (M = 4.14, SD = 1.34) rather than bythe ‘atypical’ feminist (M = 4.71, SD = 0.73) and undefinedtarget (M= 4.55, SD = 0.91), t(86) =�2.10, p = .04, r= .22.Participants did not differ in their behavioural intentions whenthese behaviours were advocated by the ‘atypical’ feministversus the undefined target, t(86) = .60, p= .55, r= .06.

Mediation Analysis

Using the same procedure as in Study 1, we found thatstereotypical traits mediated the effect of target on behaviouralintentions (95% bias-corrected CI [�0.59, �0.09]). Thus,participants were less likely to adopt pro-equality behaviours

when they were advocated by the ‘typical’ feminist becausethey attributed more negative stereotypical traits to this target.5

Discussion

This study revealed that participants were less motivated toadopt pro-equality behaviours when these behaviours wereostensibly advocated by the ‘typical’ feminist rather than whenthese same behaviours were advocated by the ‘atypical’ feministor the undefined target, because participants were more likely toassociate the ‘typical’ feminist with negative stereotypical traits.Thus, despite aggressively promoting social change, ‘typical’activists may, ironically, undermine individuals’ motivation toengage in pro-change behaviours.

STUDY 3

Although Studies 1 and 2 provide converging evidence thatnegative stereotypes of activists undermine the pro-changeinfluence of activists, it may be that the effects observed in thesestudies are specific to feminists and do not generalize to otheractivists. The pilot studies indicate, however, that individualsascribe similarly negative traits to environmentalists, viewingmembers of both groups as militant/aggressive and eccentric/unconventional. This suggests that negative stereotypes mayindeed characterize activist groups in general and limit theirsuccess in promoting social change. In Study 3, we obtainedadditional support for this argument by replicating the effectsobserved in Studies 1 and 2 with environmentalist targets.

We also used this study as an opportunity to examine therelationships between stereotypes, affiliation and pro-changebehavioural intentions within the same study. We have arguedthat individuals are reluctant to affiliate with activists because theyassociate them with negative stereotypes. This reluctance to affil-iate may in turn contribute to individuals’ rejection of the activists’message. Indeed, because individuals who seem undesirable asinteraction or relationship partners are rejected by others (Hebl,Williams, Sundermann, Kell, & Davies, 2012), individuals maywish to avoid engaging in behaviours that would characterizethem in a similarly negative light. Thus, if individuals associateactivists with negative stereotypes and therefore view them as peo-ple with whom it would be undesirable to affiliate, they may beless motivated to engage in the pro-change behaviours that arecharacteristic of activists. We examined this directly in Study 3.

Method

Participants

Participants were 140Americans (Mage = 34.10 years, SD=12.23)recruited online via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk who received$0.75. There were 55 male and 74 female participants. Elevenparticipants did not identify their biological sex.

Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 43, 614–626 (2013)

ons License

620 Nadia Y. Bashir et al.

10990992, 2013, 7, Dow

nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.1983 by L

iberty University, W

iley Online L

ibrary on [30/05/2023]. See the Term

s and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary

Procedure

Similar to Study 2, participants in Study 3 were randomlyassigned to read a bogus profile of a journalist who representeda ‘typical’ environmentalist (‘I hold rallies outside chemicalresearch labs…to protest the production of harmful chemicalsubstances’), an ‘atypical’ environmentalist (‘I’m involved inorganizing social events at restaurants and lounges to raisemoney for grassroots-level environmental organizations’) or anundefined target (‘When my weekends aren’t packed with workand volunteer activities, I usually spend the day watching TV orhanging out at coffee shops’). As in Study 1, a separate group ofparticipants rated the typicality of the targets described in thetarget profiles. Participants viewed the targets described in the‘typical’ environmentalist profile (M= 6.15, SD= 0.93) to bemore ‘typical’ of environmentalists than the targets describedin the ‘atypical’ environmentalist (M = 5.12, SD = 1.57) andundefined target (M = 2.82, SD = 1.34) profiles, ts> 3.24,ps< .004, rs> .49.6

Next, participants read a fictitious pro-environmental articleabout climate change and the need for individuals to adoptsustainable lifestyles (e.g. ‘Scientific evidence suggests thatwithin 10 years, hurricanes will become more frequent andintense than they are now, and as a result, they’ll devastate manyregions around the world’). As in Study 2, all participants read thesame article but were told that it had been written by the journalistwhom they had read about. Participants then completed a 16-itemversion of the stereotypical traits measure used in Studies 1 and 2(α = .90), which was created on the basis of the environmentalisttraits identified in Pilot Study B.7 They also completed theaffiliation measure used in Studies 1 and 2 (α= .97) and a 29-itemmeasure assessing their pro-environmental behavioural intentions(e.g. ‘I plan to always recycle whatever materials I can’; α= .97).Participants rated their intentions along 7-point scales anchored at1 (strongly disagree) and 7 (strongly agree).

.wiley.com

/terms-and-conditions) on W

iley Online L

ibrary for rules of u

Results

Stereotypical Traits

An ANOVA revealed a significant target effect on stereotypicaltraits, F(2, 137) =70.31, p< .001, r= .71. Participants attributedmore stereotypical environmentalist traits to the ‘typical’ environ-mentalist (M=5.00, SD=0.96) than to the ‘atypical’ environmen-talist (M=3.73 SD=0.64) and undefined target (M=3.18,SD=0.54), t(137) =11.58, p< .001, r= .70. They also attributedmore stereotypical traits to the ‘atypical’ environmentalist versusthe undefined target, t(137) = 3.62, p< .001, r= .30.

6Participants may have reacted more favourably to the ‘atypical’ activistsbecause they did not truly perceive these targets as environmentalists orfeminists or because they perceived these targets as promoting subtle ratherthan considerable social change. A separate group of participants (N= 71)indicated, however, that both the ‘typical’ and ‘atypical’ target profiles in Studies2–4 represented feminists or environmentalists (all ratings greater than 6 on ascale anchored at 1 [not at all a feminist/environmentalist] and 7 [very much afeminist/environmentalist]). Participants also rated the degree to which the targetsadvocated the need for substantial societal change. Ratings of the ‘typical’ and‘atypical’ targets did not differ significantly, ps> .29.7Study 3 stereotype traits items: radical, aggressive, forceful, annoying, cru-sader, activist, judgmental, eccentric, tofu-eating, scruffy, fun, pleasant, cool,friendly, approachable and social (the last six traits were reverse-scored).

Affiliation

An ANOVA revealed a significant effect of target on affiliation,F(2, 135)=34.38, p< .001, r= .58. As in Study 1, participantswere less interested in affiliating with the ‘typical’ environmentalist(M=2.44, SD=1.62) than with the ‘atypical’ environmentalist(M = 4.53 SD = 1.31) and undefined target (M = 4.66,SD = 1.37), t(135) =�8.28, p< .001, r = .58. Their ratings ofthe ‘atypical’ environmentalist versus the undefined target didnot differ significantly, t(135) = .34,p = .73, r = .06.

Behavioural Intentions

An ANOVA revealed a marginal overall target effect onbehavioural intentions, F(2, 130) = 2.73, p = .07, r = .20.Similar to the results obtained in Study 2, the criticalplanned contrast comparing the ‘typical’ environmentalistwith the ‘atypical’ environmentalist and undefined targetwas significant: Participants were less motivated to adoptpro-environmental behaviours when these behaviours wereadvocated by the ‘typical’ environmentalist (M = 4.07,SD = 1.30) rather than by the ‘atypical’ environmentalist(M = 4.64, SD = 1.08) or undefined target (M = 4.59,SD = 1.39), t(130) =�2.30, p = .02, r = .20. Participants didnot differ in their pro-environmental behavioural intentionswhen these behaviours were advocated by the ‘atypical’environmentalist versus the undefined target, t(130) = .19,p = .85, r = .02.

Mediation Analysis

Using a serial multiple mediator model based on 5000bootstrapped resamples (Hayes, 2013), we examined theextent to which stereotypical perceptions of the ‘typical’environmentalist reduced interest in affiliating with thisenvironmentalist, which ultimately reduced intentions toadopt the behaviours advocated by this target. The indirecteffect of target on behavioural intentions through the twoserial mediators, stereotypical traits and affiliation, wassignificant (95% bias-corrected CI [�0.63, �0.08]). Thus,because individuals associate ‘typical’ environmentalistswith negative stereotypes, they are less interested in affili-ating with them and consequently less inclined to adoptthe behaviours that these environmentalists advocate.

se; OA

articles are governed by the applicable Creative C

Discussion

This study provides converging evidence that individualsavoid adopting pro-change behaviours when these behav-iours are advocated by ‘typical’ activists rather than by‘atypical’ activists or individuals who are not described asactivists. Furthermore, the present findings demonstrate thatindividuals avoid adopting pro-change behaviours advo-cated by ‘typical’ activists because they associate theseactivists with negative stereotypes and therefore view themas people with whom it would be undesirable to affiliate.

Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 43, 614–626 (2013)

ons License

The ironic impact of activists 621

10990992, 2013, 7, Dow

nlo

STUDY 4

aded from https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.1983 by L

iberty University, W

iley Online L

ibrary on [30/05/2023]. See the Term

s and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com/term

s-and-conditions) on Wiley O

nline Library for rules of use; O

A articles are governed by the applicable C

reative Co

Studies 1–3 provide converging evidence that individualsavoid supporting social change in part because they associateactivists with unfavourable stereotypes and therefore resistthe efforts of these activists to promote change. In Study 4,we obtained additional evidence for this argument byreplicating Study 3 using the more organically derivedenvironmentalist stereotype traits identified in Pilot Study C.

Method

Participants

Participants were 238Americans (Mage = 35.53 years, SD=12.84)recruited online via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk who received$0.65. There were 87 male and 145 female participants. Sixparticipants did not identify their sex.

Procedure

Participants in Study 4 completed the same procedure used inStudy 3 with the following exceptions. First, the stereotypemeasure was composed of the 30 most frequently listedenvironmentalist traits obtained in Pilot Study C (Table 1).To maintain consistency across studies, we also includedthe six personable traits used in Studies 1–3 in this measure(α = .90). Second, to provide evidence that participants didin fact view the ‘typical’ environmentalist to be more ‘typical’of environmentalists than the other targets, at the end of thestudy, participants completed the same typicality manipula-tion check rating used in Study 2. Last, to verify that the iden-tity of the target had an impact on participants’ pro-changebehavioural intentions over and above any effects that couldbe attributed solely to the article, participants who wererandomly assigned to a second control group read the articleand completed all measures without first reading a targetprofile (unidentified journalist condition).

Results and Discussion

Typicality Manipulation Check

An ANOVA on the single-item typicality rating revealed asignificant target effect, F(3, 231) = 17.63, p< .001, r = .43.Participants’ ratings were significantly higher for the ‘typical’environmentalist (M = 6.24, SD = 0.99) than for the ‘atypical’environmentalist (M = 5.34, SD = 1.54), undefined target(M = 4.59, SD = 1.48) and unidentified journalist (M = 4.89,SD = 1.25), ts> 3.69, ps< .001, rs> .24.

Stereotypical Traits

An ANOVA revealed a significant target effect on stereotyp-ical traits, F(3, 232) = 38.40, p< .001, r = .58. Participantsattributed more stereotypical environmentalist traits to the‘typical’ environmentalist (M = 4.91, SD = 0.63) than to the‘atypical’ environmentalist (M = 4.16, SD = 0.62), undefinedtarget (M = 3.81, SD = 0.54) and unidentified journalist

(M = 4.10, SD = 0.56), t(232) = 10.16, p< .001, r = .55. Theyalso attributed more stereotypical traits to the ‘atypical’environmentalist versus the undefined target, t(232) = 3.23,p = .001, r = .21, and the unidentified target versus theundefined target, t(232) = 2.63, p = .009, r = .17. Ratings ofthe ‘atypical’ environmentalist and unidentified target didnot differ significantly, t(232) = .58, p = .56, r = .04.

Affiliation

An ANOVA revealed a significant target effect on affiliation(α= .97), F(3, 234) = 20.44, p< .001, r= .46. Similar toStudies 1–3, participants were less interested in affiliating withthe ‘typical’ environmentalist (M = 2.83, SD = 1.65) than withthe ‘atypical’ environmentalist (M = 4.53, SD = 1.61),undefined target (M = 4.79, SD = 1.51) and unidentified jour-nalist (M= 4.35, SD = 1.24), t(234) =�7.66, p< .001, r = .45.Their ratings of the ‘atypical’ environmentalist, the undefinedtarget and the unidentified journalist did not differ, ts< 1.57,ps> .11, rs< .10.

Behavioural Intentions

AnANOVA revealed amarginal overall effect of target on behav-ioural intentions (α = .97), F(3, 234) =2.29, p= .08, r= .17. As inStudies 2 and 3, the critical planned contrast was significant:Participants were less motivated to adopt pro-environmentalbehaviours when these behaviours were advocated by the ‘typi-cal’ environmentalist (M=4.41, SD=1.13) rather than by the‘atypical’ environmentalist (M=4.62, SD=1.26), undefined tar-get (M=4.75, SD=1.31) or unidentified journalist (M=4.97,SD= 0.98), t(234) =�2.06, p= .04, r= .13. Participants’ behav-ioural intentions did not differ when these behaviours wereadvocated by the ‘atypical’ environmentalist, the undefinedtarget or the unidentified journalist, ts< 1.68, ps> .11, rs< .11.

Mediation Analysis

As in Study 3, the indirect effect of target on behavioural intentionsthrough the two serial mediators, stereotypical traits and affiliation,was significant (95% bias-corrected CI [�0.49, �0.23]).

Thus, even when participants rated a ‘typical’ environ-mentalist on the traits that most closely reflect individuals’stereotypes of environmentalists, their tendency to attributenegative stereotypes to this target reduced their willingnessto affiliate with this target and, ultimately, their motivationto adopt pro-change behaviours advocated by this target.

STUDY 5

In Studies 1–4, we manipulated target typicality using profilesthat described the targets in a stereotype-consistent orstereotype-inconsistent manner, on the basis of the results ofthe pilot studies. Because activist stereotypes are largelynegative, the profiles describing the ‘typical’ activists containedmore negative information than did the profiles describing theother targets. Thus, to verify that participants’ reactions to thetargets were influenced by the targets’ typicality rather than by

Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 43, 614–626 (2013)

ons License

622 Nadia Y. Bashir et al.

10990992, 2013, 7, Dow

nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.1983 by L

iberty University, W

iley Online L

ibrary on [30/05/2023]. See the Term

s and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com/term

s-and-conditions) on Wiley O

nline Library for rules of use; O

A articles are governed by the applicable C

reative Co

only the valence of the profiles, we conducted an additionalstudy in which participants simply read that the target was a‘typical’ or ‘atypical’ environmentalist or feminist and did notreceive any valenced target information.

Method

Participants

We recruited 194 Americans (Mage = 34.68 years, SD = 13.75)online via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. They received $0.45.There were 73 male and 114 female participants. Sevenparticipants did not identify their sex.

Procedure

Participants were randomly assigned to read about a ‘typical’or ‘atypical’ environmentalist or feminist. Specifically, partic-ipants read that

A. M. Johnson is very committed to promoting [environ-mentalism/women’s rights], [and is a typical/but is anatypical] [environmentalist/feminist]. That is, Johnson is[very different from] what members of society expect[an environmentalist/a feminist] to be like.

Participants did not receive any specific or valenced targetinformation. Participants in the environmentalist conditions thencompleted the stereotype trait measure used in Study 4 (α= .89).Participants in the feminist conditions completed the samemeasureexcept that the environmentalist traits were replaced with the top30 feminist traits identified in Pilot StudyC (Table 1; α= .94). Last,participants completed the affiliation measure (α = .94) and single-item typicality manipulation check used in the previous studies.

Results and Discussion

Typicality Manipulation Check

A 2 (manipulated typicality: ‘typical’, ‘atypical’) × 2 (activistdomain: environmentalist, feminist) ANOVA on the single-itemtypicality rating revealed a main effect of manipulated typicality.Participants rated the ‘typical’ (M=5.17, SD=1.51) versus‘atypical’ (M= 3.16, SD= 1.58) activists as more ‘typical’, F(1,189) = 79.99, p< .001, r= .55. The main effect of domain andinteraction were nonsignificant, Fs< 0.20, ps> .65, rs< .03.

Stereotypical Traits

A 2×2 ANOVA revealed a main effect of manipulated typicalityon stereotypical traits. Participants attributed more stereotypicalfeminist or environmentalist traits to the ‘typical’ (M = 4.51,SD = 0.67) versus ‘atypical’ (M = 3.85, SD = 0.75) activists,F(1, 190) = 41.47, p< .001, r = .42. The main effect of domainand interaction were nonsignificant, Fs< 0.15, ps> .70, rs< .03.

Affiliation

A 2× 2 ANOVA also revealed a main effect of manipulatedtypicality on affiliation. Participants were less interested in

affiliating with the ‘typical’ (M = 3.91, SD= 1.51) versus‘atypical’ (M = 4.32, SD = 1.36) activists, F(1, 189) = 4.28,p = .04, r= .15 Although participants were more willing toaffiliate with environmentalists (M= 4.44, SD= 1.11) thanfeminists (M= 3.81, SD= 1.64), F(1, 189) = 10.19, p = .002,r= .23, activist domain did not moderate the manipulatedtypicality effect, F(1, 189) = 1.59, p = .21, r = .09.

Mediation Analysis

Consistent with Studies 1–4, participants were less willing toaffiliate with the ‘typical’ versus ‘atypical’ targets becausethey attributed more negative stereotypical traits to these tar-gets (95% bias-corrected CI [�0.49, �0.22]).

Thus, even when perceivers do not receive any specificor valenced target information, they attribute more negativestereotypical traits to ‘typical’ versus ‘atypical’ activistsand therefore react more negatively to them.

Meta-analysis of Effects

We have argued that individuals are less willing to affiliatewith and adopt behaviours advocated by ‘typical’ activistsrelative to ‘atypical’ activists and undefined targets. Toassess the overall evidence for this argument, we conducteda meta-analysis for the key comparisons involving thesevariables across all studies (Table 3). An unweighted meansapproach revealed an overall ‘typical’ versus ‘atypical’ activisteffect on affiliation (r = .32, 95% CI [0.12, 0.52]) and behav-ioural intentions (r = .16, 95% CI [0.06, 0.26]). Similarly,there was an overall ‘typical’ activist versus undefined targeteffect on affiliation (r = .43, 95% CI [0.31, 0.55]) and behav-ioural intentions (r = .14, 95% CI [0.10, 0.18]). The overall‘atypical’ activist versus undefined target effect, in contrast,was small for affiliation (r= .10, 95% CI [0.02, 0.19]) and didnot differ significantly from zero on behavioural intentions(r=�.01, 95% CI [�0.07, 0.04]). Furthermore, when using aweighted means approach, the overall ‘atypical’ activist versusundefined target effect did not differ significantly from zero onaffiliation (r= .08, 95% CI [�0.02, 0.17]) or behaviouralintentions (r = .004, 95% CI [�0.09, 0.10]). For compari-sons of ‘typical’ activists with ‘atypical’ activists and‘typical’ activists with undefined targets, the unweightedand weighted means approaches produced similar patternsof results. Thus, across studies, we found a consistenteffect for the difference in responses to ‘typical’ and‘atypical’ activists and also for the difference in responsesto ‘typical’ activists and undefined targets. In contrast,individuals’ responses to ‘atypical’ activists and undefinedtargets did not differ consistently. The results of ourmeta-analysis thus provide additional evidence that individ-uals avoid affiliating with and adopting the behavioursadvocated by ‘typical’ activists.

Testing Alternative Models

We argue that individuals avoid affiliating with ‘typical’activists and adopting the pro-change behaviours that ‘typical’activists advocate because they associate these activists withnegative stereotypes. This possibility is consistent with

Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 43, 614–626 (2013)

ons License

Table

3.Significancevalues

andeffect

sizesforpairwisecomparisons

inStudies

1–5

‘Typical’vs.‘atypical’

activ

ist

‘Typical’vs.u

ndefined

target

‘Atypical’activ

ist

vs.u

ndefinedtarget

‘Typical’activ

istvs.

unidentifi

edtarget

‘Atypical’activ

istvs.

unidentifi

edtarget

Undefinedtarget

vs.

unidentifi

edtarget

pEffectsize

(r)

pEffectsize

(r)

pEffectsize

(r)

pEffectsize

(r)

pEffectsize

(r)

pEffectsize

(r)

Study

1Traits

<.001

.47

<.001

.73

<.001

.47

Affiliatio

n.17

.18

.005

.35

.14

.19

Study

2Traits

.01

.26

<.001

.46

.03

.23

Intentions

.04

.22

.14

.16

.55

�.06

Study

3Traits

<.001

.59

<.001

.70

<.001

.30

Affiliatio

n<.001

.53

<.001

.52

.73

.06

Intentions

.03

.19

.07

.16

.85

�.02

Study

4Traits

<.001

.42

<.001

.56

.001

.21

<.001

.44

.56

.04

.009

.17

Affiliatio

n<.001

.37

<.001

.42

.37

.06

<.001

.34

.51

.04

.12

.10

Intentions

.35

.06

.13

.10

.55

.04

.01

.16

.12

.10

.31

�.07

Study

5Traits

<.001

.42

Affiliatio

n.04

.15

The ironic impact of activists 623

10990992, 2013, 7, Dow

nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.1983 by L

iberty University, W

iley Online L

ibrary on [30/05/2023]. See the Term

s and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com/term

s-and-conditions) on Wiley O

nline Library for rules of use; O

A articles are governed by the applicable C

reative Com

mons L

icense

624 Nadia Y. Bashir et al.

10990992, 2013, 7, Dow

nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.1983 by L

iberty University, W

iley Online L

ibrary on [30/05/2023]. See the Term

s and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com/term

s-an

research indicating that individuals draw on their impressions oftargets (e.g. perceptions of targets’ traits) when forming evalua-tions of the targets and determining how they should react to thetargets (Fiske & Neuberg, 1990; Macrae & Bodenhausen,2000). It is also possible, however, that individuals form nega-tive perceptions of activists after they reject an opportunity toaffiliate with ‘typical’ activists or adopt the behaviours that ‘typ-ical’ activists advocate, because they need to justify their initialnegative reactions. This second explanation is not necessarilyinconsistent with our argument. Indeed, it may be that individ-uals’ stereotypical perceptions of activists reduce theirwillingness to affiliate with ‘typical’ activists and adopt thepro-change behaviours that ‘typical’ activists advocate, whichmay ultimately reinforce individuals’ initial stereotypicalperceptions. Nonetheless, we examined alternative mediationmodels by assessing models corresponding to all possible serialpermutations of the mediators and dependent variable in Studies1–5. This produced one alternative model in Studies 1, 2 and 5and five alternative models in Studies 3 and 4. The indirecteffects for the alternative model in Study 2, four of the alternativemodels in Study 3 and two of the alternative models in Study 4were nonsignificant. Furthermore, although the remaining alterna-tive models did produce significant indirect effects, the size of theindirect effect in all alternative models was smaller than that of theoriginal model in Study 1 (original model: r= .51; alternativemodel: r= .29), Study 2 (original model: r= .25; alternativemodel: r= .16), Study 3 (original model: r= .19; all alternativemodels: rs = .004–.12), Study 4 (original model: r= .33; allalternative models: rs = .05–.25) and Study 5 (original model:r= .34; alternative model: r= .14). Thus, although there is someevidence to suggest that individuals’ willingness to affiliate withactivists and adopt the behaviours that they advocate may subse-quently influence their stereotypical perceptions of theseactivists, the evidence is more consistent with the possibility thatindividuals’ stereotypes of activists influence their desire toaffiliate with and emulate activists. Indeed, the only consistentpattern of mediation across all studies was that in which stereo-typical perceptions served as a mediating variable rather than thedependent variable.

d-conditions) on W

GENERAL DISCUSSION

iley Online L

ibrary for rules of use; OA

articles are governed by the applicable Creative C

The present research shows that individuals’ stereotypes ofactivists influence their support for social change. Previously,researchers have attempted to understand resistance to socialchange by examining individuals’ perceptions of socialissues, attitudes towards social change and personality traits(e.g. Feygina et al., 2010; Hodson & Esses, 2002; van Zomerenet al., 2008). The present research, in comparison, assesses theextent to which individuals’ stereotypes of activists, the agentsof social change, increase resistance to social change. Individ-uals believe that it is important and socially desirable to supportsocial change (Beattie, 2010; Nelson et al., 2008), whichsuggests that they should view activists favourably and bereceptive to their efforts. Unfortunately, however, the verynature of activism leads to negative stereotyping: By aggres-sively promoting change and advocating unconventionalpractices, activists become associated with hostile militancy

and unconventionality or eccentricity. Indeed, we show thatthe tendency to associate ‘typical’ activists with these nega-tive stereotypes mediates individuals’ unfavourable reactionsto the activists. Specifically, individuals avoid affiliating with‘typical’ activists (Studies 1 and 3–5) because they view them asmilitant/aggressive and eccentric/unconventional. Furthermore,this tendency to associate activists with negative stereotypes andperceive them as people with whom it would be unpleasant toaffiliate reduces individuals’ motivation to adopt the pro-changebehaviours that activists advocate (Studies 2–4). This researchindicates, therefore, that stereotypes and person perceptionprocesses more generally influence individuals’ receptiveness toactivists and their pro-change initiatives.

Our studies also reveal the nuances of these effects byshowing that individuals do not avoid affiliating with andadopting the behaviours advocated by all activists. Indeed,although participants reacted negatively to the ‘typical’ activists,their willingness to affiliate with and adopt the behavioursadvocated by ‘atypical’ activists and undefined targets did notdiffer. This suggests that it is not mere membership in an activistgroup but rather the degree to which an activist conforms togroup stereotypes that influences perceivers’ reactions. Whereasindividuals may avoid affiliating with and emulating activistswho seem to conform to activist stereotypes, they may be morereceptive to activists who defy these stereotypes by comingacross as pleasant and approachable.

The present findings also contribute theoretically byillustrating effects that differ from those observed in researchon message source typicality. On the basis of source typicalityresearch (Ziegler & Diehl, 2011; Ziegler, Diehl, & Ruther,2002), individuals should respond more favourably tomessages containing strong arguments and less favourably tomessages containing weak arguments when they are deliveredby an ‘atypical’ activist rather than a ‘typical’ activist orundefined target. Indeed, ‘atypical’ activists possess ‘atypical’combinations of personality traits (i.e. personable and environ-mentalist), whereas ‘typical’ activists and undefined targets donot. According to source typicality research, therefore,‘atypical’ activists should disconfirm perceivers’ expectationsand elicit greater information processing. In our studies,however, participants responded similarly to the messagedelivered by the ‘atypical’ activists and undefined targets.

Researchers have also examined message source typicalityin terms of the fit between the position advocated in a message(e.g. pro-environmental stance) and the message source (e.g.director of an environmental group versus CEO of an oil com-pany; Eagly, Wood, & Chaiken, 1978). In our studies, both the‘typical’ and ‘atypical’ activists were portrayed as individualswho advocate social change whereas the undefined targetswere not. Indeed, participants in Study 3 viewed the ‘typical’and ‘atypical’ environmentalists to be similarly environmen-tally friendly, t(96) = .06, p = .96, and significantly more envi-ronmentally friendly than the undefined target, ts> 5.51,ps< .001. Source typicality research would suggest, therefore,that individuals should respond similarly to messagesdelivered by ‘typical’ and ‘atypical’ activists and differently tomessages delivered by these targets versus undefined targets.We show, however, that individuals differed in their pro-changebehavioural intentions when these behaviours were advocatedby ‘typical’ versus ‘atypical’ activists but not when these

Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 43, 614–626 (2013)

ons License

The ironic impact of activists 625

10990992, 2013, 7, Dow

nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.1983 by L

iberty University, W

iley Online L

ibrary on [30/05/2023]. See the Term

s and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com/term

s-and-conditions) on Wiley O

nline Library for rules of use; O

A articles are go

behaviours were advocated by ‘atypical’ activists versusundefined targets. Thus, whereas our data are consistent withthe argument that stereotypes influence individuals’ reactionsto activists, they are inconsistent with alternative explanationsbased on source typicality research.

Although we examined the implications of activist stereotypesfor social change by focusing on two key activist groups, weargue that the militant and eccentric traits that characterize thesegroups also characterize a variety of activist groups (e.g. gayrights, political democracy and Occupy Wall Street activists).Some activist groups (e.g. gun control advocates) maybe lesslikely to engage in overtly aggressive advocacy and may,therefore, be less likely to be perceived as militant. We note,however, that many of the stereotypical traits generated by partic-ipants in Pilot Study C describe activists as argumentative andconfrontational but not necessarily violent (e.g. ‘forceful’, ‘self-righteous’, ‘assertive’ and ‘overreactive’). Because it is possiblefor individuals to be argumentative and confrontational evenwhen advocating causes that explicitly condemn violence,individuals may associate militant and eccentric traits even withthose activist groups that exemplify these traits less overtly thando feminists and environmentalists. In future research, it will beimportant to assess these possibilities directly.

We examined individuals’ reactions to activists withoutconsidering perceivers’ own identity as activists. Activist andnonactivist perceivers may, however, respond differently toactivist targets. Indeed, because individuals generally viewingroup members positively (Sherif, Harvey, White, Hood, &Sherif 1961; Tajfel & Turner, 1979), activist perceivers mayrespond relatively favourably to ‘typical’ activists. On the otherhand, because individuals have especially unfavourable impres-sions of group members who perform undesirable behaviours(Marques, Yzerbyt, & Leyens, 1988), activist perceivers whocondemn the use of militant methods to promote social change(e.g. ‘atypical’ activists) may react particularly negatively to‘typical’ activists. In future work, researchers may wish toexaminewhether perceiver identitymoderates reactions to activists.

For many activists, the willingness to take a radical stand with-out regard for mainstream sensibilities is a point of pride. Indeed,environmental activist and author of ‘Tree Spiker’ Mike Roselle(as cited in Olafsson, 2009) defends his militant efforts to protectthe environment, noting, ‘I don’t think there’s anything extremeabout saying we have to stop pumping carbon into the air. If we’reextremists, so be it. The stakes are too high’ (para. 6). The presentresearch suggests, however, that such seemingly zealous dedica-tion to a social cause may backfire and elicit unfavourable reac-tions from others. Indeed, individuals avoid affiliating with‘typical’ activists and adopting the pro-change behaviours thatthese activists advocate because individuals associate them withnegative stereotypes. Ironically and despite good intentions, there-fore, the very individuals who are most actively engaged in pro-moting social change may inadvertently alienate members of thepublic and reduce pro-change motivation.

verned by the

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

applicable Creative C

This research was supported by a Social Sciences and HumanitiesResearch Council (SSHRC) Canada Graduate Scholarship to thefirst author and a SSHRC grant to the second author.

REFERENCES

Agronick, G. S., & Duncan, L. E. (1998). Personality and social change:Individual differences, life path, and importance attributed to thewomen’s movement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,74, 1545–1555. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1545

Aronson, P. (2003). Feminists or “postfeminists?” Young women’s attitudestoward feminism and gender relations. Gender & Society, 17, 903–922.DOI: 10.1177/0891243203257145

Bashir, N. Y., Lockwood, P., Dolderman, D., Sarkissian, T., & Quick,L. K. (2011). Emphasizing jobs and trees: Increasing the impact ofproenvironmental messages on migrants. Basic and Applied SocialPsychology, 33, 255–265. DOI: 10.1080/01973533.2011.589319

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire forinterpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 117, 497–529. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497

Beattie, G. (2010). Why aren’t we saving the planet? A psychologist’sperspective. London, UK: Routledge.

Berryman-Fink, C., & Verderber, K. S. (1985). Attributions of the term femi-nist: A factor analytic development of a measuring instrument. Psychologyof Women Quarterly, 9, 51–64. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.1985.tb00860.x

Brown, G. (2007). Mutinous eruptions: Autonomous spaces of radical queeractivism. Environment and Planning A, 39, 2685–2698. DOI: 10.1068/a38385

Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York, NY: Academic Press.Clark, R. D., III, & Maass, A. (1988). Social categorization in minority

influence: The case of homosexuality. European Journal of SocialPsychology, 18, 347–364. DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.2420180405

Cohen, G. L. (2003). Party over policy: The dominating impact of group influ-ence on political beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85,808–822. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.808

Czopp, A. M., Monteith, M. J., & Mark, A. Y. (2006). Standing up for a change:Reducing bias through interpersonal confrontation. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 90, 784–803. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.784

Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Chaiken, S. (1978). Causal inferences aboutcommunicators and their effect on opinion change. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 36, 424–435. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.36.4.424

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2001). Terrorism 2000/2001. (Report no.0308). Retrieved from http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terror/terrorism-2000-2001

Feygina, I., Jost, J. T., & Goldsmith, R. E. (2010). System justification, thedenial of global warming, and the possibility of “system-sanctionedchange”. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 326–338. DOI:10.1177/0146167209351435

Fiske, S. T., & Neuberg, S. L. (1990). A continuum of impression formation,from category-based to individuating processes: Influences of informationand motivation on attention and interpretation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Ad-vances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 1–74). San Diego,CA: Academic Press.

Gifford, R. (2011). The dragons of inaction. Psychological barriers that limitclimate change mitigation and adaptation. American Psychologist, 66,290–302. DOI: 10.1037/a0023566

Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction tomediation, moderation, and conditional processanalysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Hebl, M. R., Williams, M. J., Sundermann, J. M., Kell, H. J., & Davies,P. G. (2012). Selectively friending: Racial stereotypicality and socialrejection. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 1329–1335.DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2012.05.019

Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hodson, G., & Esses, V. M. (2002). Distancing oneself from negative attributesand the personal/group discrimination discrepancy. Journal of ExperimentalSocial Psychology, 38, 500–507. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-1031(02)00012-4

House Committee on Armed Services. (1993). Policy implications of lifting the banon homosexuals in the military: Hearings before the Committee on Armed Ser-vices (HJLS.C.No. 103–18).Washington,DC:U.S.Government PrintingOffice.

Kay, A. C., & Friesen, J. (2011). On social stability and social change:Understanding when system justification does and does not occur. CurrentDirections in Psychological Science, 20, 360–364. DOI: 10.1177/0963721411422059

Macrae, C. N., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2000). Social cognition: Thinking cat-egorically about others. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 93–120. DOI:10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.93

Marques, J. M., Yzerbyt, V. Y., & Leyens, J.-P. (1988). The ‘black sheepeffect’: Extremity of judgments towards ingroup members as a functionof group identification. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 1–16.DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.2420180102

Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 43, 614–626 (2013)

ons License

626 Nadia Y. Bashir et al.

10990992, 2013, 7, Dow

nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.1983 by L

iberty University, W

iley Online L

ibrary on [30/05/2023]. See the T

Minson, J. A., & Monin, B. (2012). Do-gooder derogation: Disparaging mor-ally motivated minorities to defuse anticipated reproach. Social Psychologicaland Personality Science, 3, 200–207. DOI: 10.1177/1948550611415695

Monin, B., Sawyer, P. J., & Marquez, M. J. (2008). The rejection of moralrebels: Resenting those who do the right thing. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 95, 76–93. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.76

Montoya, R. M., & Horton, R. S. (2004). On the importance of cognitiveevaluation as a determinant of interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personal-ity and Social Psychology, 86, 696–712. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.86.5.696

Morton, T. A., Postmes, T., Haslam, S. A., & Hornsey, M. J. (2009). Theoriz-ing gender in the face of social change: Is there anything essential about es-sentialism? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 653–664.DOI: 10.1037/a0012966

National Archives and Records Administration. (2011). Teaching withdocuments: The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal EmploymentOpportunity Commission. Retrieved from http://www.archives.gov/educa-tion/lessons/civil-rights-act/

Nelson, J. A., Liss, M., Erchull, M. J., Hurt, M. M., Ramsey, L. R., Turner, D.L., & Haines, M. E. (2008). Identity in action: Predictors of feminist self-identification and collective action. Sex Roles, 58, 721–728. DOI:10.1007/s11199-007-9384-0

Olafsson, K. (2009, October 12). Environmental activist Mike Roselle. Time.Retrieved from www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1929701,00.html#ixzz15eA1Lykz

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strate-gies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediatormodels. Behaviour Research Methods, 40, 879–891. DOI: 10.3758/BRM.40.3.879

Pryor, J. B., Reeder, G. D., & Monroe, A. E. (2012). The infection of badcompany: Stigma by association. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 102, 224–241. DOI: 10.1037/a0026270

Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (1991). Essentials of behavioral research:Methods and data analysis. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Sedikides, C., & Gregg, A. P. (2008). Self-enhancement: Food for thought.Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 102–116. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-6916.2008.00068.x

Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. R., & Sherif, C. W. (1961).Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The robbers cave experiment.Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Book Exchange.

Superson, A. M., & Cudd, A. E. (2002). Theorizing backlash: Philosophical re-flections on the resistance to feminism. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict.In W. G. Austin, & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergrouprelations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.

The Library of Congress. (2011). Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act of 2010.Bill summary & status: H.R.2965. Retrieved from http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR02965:@@@L&summ2=m&

Twenge, J. M., & Zucker, A. N. (1991). What is a feminist? Evaluations andstereotypes in closed- and open-ended responses. Psychology of WomenQuarterly, 23, 591–605. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.1999.tb00383.x

Walton, G. M., Cohen, G. L., Cwir, D., & Spencer, S. J. (2012). Merebelonging: The power of social connections. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 102, 513–532. DOI: 10.1037/a0025731

White, P. H., & Harkins, S. G. (1994). Race of source effects in theelaboration likelihood model. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 67, 790–807. DOI: 10.1037//0022-3514.67.5.790

Zárate, M. A., Shaw, M., Marquez, J. A., & Biagas, D., Jr. (2012). Culturalinertia: The effects of cultural change on intergroup relations and the self-concept. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 634–645. DOI:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.12.014

Ziegler, R., & Diehl, M. (2011). Mood and multiple source characteristics:Mood congruency of source consensus status and source trustworthinessas determinants of message scrutiny. Personality and Social PsychologyBulletin, 37, 1016–1030. DOI: 10.1177/0146167211410438

Ziegler, R., Diehl, M., & Ruther, A. (2002). Multiple source characteristicsand persuasion: Source inconsistency as a determinant of message scrutiny.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 496–508. DOI: 10.1177/0146167202287007

van Zomeren, M., Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2008). Toward an integrativesocial identity model of collective action: A quantitative research synthesisof three socio-psychological perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 134,504–535. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.504

Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 43, 614–626 (2013)

erms and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com

/terms-and-conditions) on W

iley Online L

ibrary for rules of use; OA

articles are governed by the applicable Creative C

omm

ons License

Get Your Paper Before the Deadline. Our Services are 100% private and Confidential

Useful Links That Will Help You Around

Link to new order https://studentsolutionsusa.com/orders/stud/new

link to login page https://studentsolutionsusa.com/orders/login

New user registration link https://studentsolutionsusa.com/orders/register

Forgot Password https://studentsolutionsusa.com/orders/forgot/password

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Question: How does this work?

Answer: Good Question. We are a group of a freelance board of students and professional essay writers. At our website, you may get help with any type of academic assignments: essay, coursework, term paper, business plan, case study, article review, research paper, presentation, and speech. Top writers can help with complex assignments such as dissertations, thesis papers, etc. All of them are professionals possessing excellent knowledge in their field of expertise, perfect writing skills, quality, and speed. When you place an order on our website, we assign it to the best writer. Once the writer finishes the work, the paper is submitted to our quality assurance desk who go through it and ensure it is unique and plagiarism free and that the instructions were followed to the detail. After this step we upload the paper in your account, we also send a copy to the email that you used to register the account with. we can guarantee you that the paper will be 100% plagiarism free. Besides, our services are 100% private and confidential

Question: How do I place an Order after getting to the order page

Answer: There are three major steps in the ordering process

Step 1 ....................................................paper details In this step, you will fill in the instructions of your paper; you can upload any materials that you feel will make your assignment a success. Besides, you can also email us at [email protected] Remember to specify the correct academic level. Please note that sources mean the number of references.

Step 2...................................................... Price calculation Kindly specify the number of pages, type of spacing and the correct deadline. This step will give you the estimated cost minus discount -- you may add the extra features if you wish.

Step 3 ....................................................discount and payment Use the discount code HAPPY2018 to enjoy up to 30% discount of your total cost After this step, proceed to safe payment; you can checkout using your card or PayPal Please note we will send the complete paper to the email you will provide while registering. A copy will also be uploaded to your account

Question: How will I know when my paper is complete? or How will I get the complete Paper?

Answer: Once we are done with the paper, we will be uploaded to your account. A copy will also be sent to the email you registered with. We can guarantee you the following:- 1. Our service is private and confidential; we don't spam or share your contacts with anyone 2. The final paper will be plagiarism free. We will send a Turnitin Report to the email you registered with 3. At our company, willing to do free unlimited revisions until you are satisfied with your paper

Question:- Am a new client, How can I get the guarantee that the paper will be completed and sent to me before my deadline?

Answer: Thank you for expressing your concerns. We would love to have you as our loyal customer. We are certain if we do good work, you will come back for me. Besides, you will give us referrals to your friends and family. For that reason, we can’t fail to deliver your paper within your specified time frame. We will ensure we submit the paper on time so that you can have enough time to go through it, if you have problems with the paper delivered, you can request a free revision. You are entitled to as many revisions as you would wish until you get a paper that satisfies you

EuroJSocialPsych-2013-Bashir-TheironicimpactofactivistsNegativestereotypesreducesocialchangeinfluence.pdf

Useful Links That Will Help You Around

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Question: How does this work?

Question: How do I place an Order after getting to the order page

Question: How will I know when my paper is complete? or How will I get the complete Paper?

Question:- Am a new client, How can I get the guarantee that the paper will be completed and sent to me before my deadline?

Useful Links That Will Help You Around

Contact Us