Examining Anger’s Immobilizing Effect on Institutional Insiders’ Action Intentions in Social Movements

• Published in: Administrative science quarterly Vol. 65; no. 4; pp. 847 - 886
• Main Authors: DeCelles, Katherine A., Sonenshein, Scott, King, Brayden G.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Los Angeles, CA Sage Publications, Inc 01-12-2020; SAGE Publications; SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC
• Subjects: Activism; Activists; Anger; Collective action; Demonstrations & protests; Fear & phobias; Firearm laws & regulations; Polls & surveys; Social activism; Social movements; Wall Street; Workplaces; social movements; insider activism; collective action
• ISSN: 0001-8392; 1930-3815
• DOI: 10.1177/0001839219879646

We theorize that anger incited by a social movement, which has a mobilizing effect among outsider activists, might immobilize collective action intentions for institutional insiders—those sympathetic to the movement and employed by its target. We conducted initial field surveys across a spectrum of social movements, including Occupy Wall Street and #metoo, as well as those related to business sustainability and gun control, which showed that institutional insiders are often just as angry as outsider activists. But the evidence from those surveys did not show that social movement anger translated into collective action intentions among institutional insiders. We tested our theory deductively with an experiment conducted with participants who were supportive of social movement issues in their organizations. Overall, our results show that anger about a social movement issue relates to greater collective action intentions among outsider activists but not among institutional insiders. Instead of anger emboldening institutional insiders to act despite the potential costs, anger triggers fear about the potential negative consequences of collective action in the workplace, which in turn results in withdrawal. While social movements often rely on anger frames to mobilize sympathizers, our work suggests that this practice may paradoxically cause fear that immobilizes those uniquely positioned to be able to influence organizations to change.