Content uploaded by Ángel del Fresno-Díaz
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ángel del Fresno-Díaz on May 17, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Running head: Fighting inequalities in times of pandemic
Fighting inequalities in times of pandemic: The role of politicized identities and
interdependent self-construal in coping with economic threat
Ángel del Fresno-Díaz1, Lucía Estevan-Reina2, Ángel Sánchez-Rodríguez3, Guillermo
B. Willis and Soledad de Lemus1
1 University of Granada
2 Jagiellonian University
3 University of Salamanca
Author Note
Ángel del Fresno-Díaz https://orcidid.org.org/0000-0001-6749-7080
Lucía Estevan-Reina https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4724-3969
Ángel Sánchez-Rodríguez https://orcidid.org.org/0000-0002-9749-8508
Guillermo B. Willis https://orcidid.org.org/0000-0001-6593-948X
Soledad de Lemus https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6191-9446
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Ángel del Fresno-
Díaz, University of Granada, Centro de Investigación Mente Cerebro y Comportamiento
(CIMCYC), Campus Cartuja S/N 18071, Granada, Spain.
E-mail: adelfresno@ugr.es
***This is a pre-print of the manuscript accepted for publication at
Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology***
Reference: del Fresno-Díaz, Á., Estevan-Reina, L., Sánchez-Rodríguez, Á., Willis, G.
B. & de Lemus, S. (2022). Fighting inequalities in times of pandemic: The role of
politicized identities and interdependent self-construal in coping with economic threat.
Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology.
Running head: Fighting inequalities in times of pandemic
Abstract
During the COVID-19 pandemic, institutions encouraged social isolation and non-
interaction with other people to prevent contagion. Still, the response to an impending
economic crisis must be through collective organization. In this set of pre-registered
studies, we analyze two possible mechanisms of coping with collective economic threat:
shared social identity and interdependent self-construction. We conducted three
correlational studies during the pandemic in May-October 2020 (Study 1, N = 363;
Study 2, N = 250; Study 3, N = 416). Results show that shared identity at two levels of
politicization (i.e., working class and 99% identities) and interdependent self-construal
mediated the relationship between collective economic threat, intolerance towards
economic inequality and collective actions to reduce it. The results highlight that the
collective economic threat can reinforce the sense of community—either through the
activation of a politicized collective identity, such as the working class or the 99% or
through the activation of an interdependent self—which in turn can trigger with greater
involvement in the fight against economic inequality. Please refer to the Supplementary
Material section to find this article’s Community and Social Impact Statement.
Keywords: Economic threat, shared politicized identity, 99%, working class,
interdependent self-construal, collective actions
3
Fighting inequalities in times of pandemic: The role of politicized identities and
interdependent self-construal in coping with economic threat
“Don’t personalise, collectivise!” (Reicher & Drury, 2020)
The effects of pandemics are not limited to health; they also influence the world
economy and cause an exacerbation of inequalities (Adams-Prassl et al., 2020; Aspachs
et al., 2021). For example, while the wealth of American billionaires has increased by
39%, lower classes, latino and black people, as well as transgender people have become
increasingly vulnerable (Inequality.org., 2021). This situation is a severe injustice that
infringes the rights of the most vulnerable ones limiting their access to basic resources
(Oxfam, 2022). Challenging this injustice mutual aid groups emerged in many countries
around the world aiming to protect the community (Ntontis et al., 2021; Stevenson et
al.,2021). People tend to come together when facing a crisis (Bukowski et al, 2019;
Fritsche et al, 2017; Hawdon & Ryan, 2011). Also, the perception of share grievances or
perceived injustice can lead people to challenge it via protests (van Stekelenburg and
Klandermans, 2013; van Zomeren et al., 2008). As such, a common fate is crucial for
both; the emergence of shared identities (Drury et al., 2016; Simon & Klandermans,
2001), and the development of a more interdependent self-construal (Oishi & Komiya,
2017) to react to shared injustice (Drury & Reicher, 2000).
The aim of the current work was to analyze whether the collective economic threat
linked to COVID-19 is related to social identities and self-construction which, in turn,
could predict intolerance towards economic inequality and collective actions against it.
Specifically, we proposed that economic collective threat might be associated to
economic inequality intolerance and actions to challenge it because it is positively related
to politicized collective identities (Simon & Klandermans, 2001; Van Zomeren et al.,
4
2008) (classical -working class identity- and emergent -99% identity-) and interdependent
self-construal (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Sánchez-Rodríguez et al., 2019).
Reactions to collective economic threat
An uncertain context such as the pandemic increases economic injustice,
promoting differences between the haves and have-nots (Rodríguez-Bailón, 2020). In
such context, realistic threats (e.g., scarcity in material resources and physical integrity)
arise. People could perceive such threats on a personal (e.g., I could get the disease or
lose my job) or on a collective level (e.g., my country will have a lack of health resources;
Fritsche et al., 2011; Fritsche & Jugert, 2017). When people feel threatened, they strive
to maintain a general sense of control; when personal control is not plausible, they turn
to the collective self (Stollberg et al., 2017). This can lead to an increase in ethnocentric
attitudes, but also to supporting social change through collective actions in favor of the
ingroup (Fritsche et al., 2017; Fritsche & Jugert, 2017) or in solidarity with others
(Bukowski et al., 2019).
Threat is related to the identification with groups with whom we shared
grievances, which in turn might lead to rejecting inequality (e.g., showing less intolerance
towards inequality or being involved in collective actions intentions; Drury & Reicher,
2000; Reicher, 1996). Among the most relevant antecedents of collective action are the
perception that the context is unfair; a high group efficacy to change it, group-based anger
emotions, and a highly politized identity (van Zomeren et al., 2008). Rising economic
inequality due to the pandemic may fuel all of these processes, leading to social protest.
Further, the perception of a common fate may also contribute to increasing social
cohesion and connection (Resta et al., 2021), promoting a more interdependent self-
construal, which could also lead them to reject inequality and promote social change.
Thus, we argue that collective economic threat might promote identification with
5
politicized groups, as well as an increase in interdependent self-construction, as a means
to reject and confront economic inequality.
Politicized identities against inequality
In order to face the shared grievances a shared identity emerges (van Stekelenburg
& Klandermans, 2017). In response to threats, social identities promote social change—
especially if they are politicized (Simon & Klandermans, 2001; Stürmer & Simon, 2009;
van Stekelenburg et al., 2009; van Zomeren et al., 2008). In order to become politicized,
people must engage as self-conscious members in a power struggle on behalf of their
group (Simon & Klandermans, 2001), and understand the need to change the structural
aspects of shared grievances and injustices (Curtin et al., 2016). We argue that economic
collective threat derived from the COVID-19 pandemic might have triggered politicized
identities opposing economic inequality, leading participants to express less tolerance
towards inequality and more intentions to participate in collective actions against it.
From a Marxist analysis, the working class consciousness is what drives class
struggle against the oppressor across history (e.g., feudalism, capitalism, etc.; Marx &
Engels, 1848/2004). Belonging to the working class has been central for the development
of political movements (e.g., labour and socialist movements, communism) and people’s
political and social attitudes (Easterbrook et al., 2020; Manstead, 2018). Thus, we
proposed that identification with the working class can be a mobilizer to confront
economic threat in the context of pandemics (cf. Žižek, 2020). However, in the last
decades the concept of the working class has been questioned, and some academics have
redefined it (Wright, 2018). Beyond the traditional identity of a working class, other
concepts emerge such as the precariat (Standing, 2013) or the analysis of inequality by
Thomas Piketty (2013). The Occupy Wall Street movement proposed an alternative
politicized identity against economic inequality: the 99%. The 99% identity is defined by
6
the shared goal of reducing economic inequality and may be a way to maintain this shared
identity but based on the reality of socio-economic divisions within the economy and
society (Stiglitz, 2012). We propose that the 99% identity can also promote a change in
attitudes and support for collective actions aimed at fighting against economic inequality.
Furthermore, we aim to compare the role of old and new conceptualization of social class
identification in triggering actions against inequality in the context of an economic threat.
Summing up, we argue that economic threats derived from the COVID-19
pandemic can promote group identities that challenge the status quo, but also might
trigger changes at the self-construal level.
The interdependence self-construal
Self-construal is a property of individuals that promotes thinking, feeling and
behaving independently or interdependently as a result of the cultural contexts they
inhabit (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Independent self-construction is defined as seeing
oneself as separate from others, emphasizing one’s uniqueness and self-expression, and
promoting personal goals over collective goals. In contrast, interdependent self-
construction includes seeing oneself as connected to others, fitting in with others,
sacrificing one’s personal goals and exercising self-control (Markus & Kitayama, 1991).
Research on the psychology of the self, identities, and cultures proposes that the
self is dynamic and malleable to the context (Markus & Hamedani, 2007; Markus &
Kitayama, 2010; Stephens et al., 2014). In this line, past research has tested the
relationship between economic inequality and the self-construal. When economic
inequality is high, people are more prone to perform independent self-construction,
increasing the competitive and individualistic social norm; conversely, when economic
inequality is low it leads to an interdependent self-construction (Sánchez-Rodríguez et al.,
2019, 2020). Similarly, the global COVID-19 pandemic is an exceptional collective social
7
context that might affect self-construal. Indeed, the virus has changed our notions of
“self” and whether we define ourselves as “us” (Jetten, 2020).
In such a context, an interdependent self-construction may be beneficial to
prioritize collective obligations over personal wishes (Bavel et al., 2020). Based on
previous literature we propose that the economic threat may increase interdependent self-
construal, which might lead to less tolerance towards inequality and more collective
actions against it. However, interdependent self-construal is a multidimensional construct
and each dimension might be affected by different antecedents (Vignoles et al., 2016).
Given that collective economic threat linked to COVID-19 might have generated the
perception of a shared common fate (Drury et al., 2016; Drury & Reicher, 2000; Reicher,
1996), we expected that it might particularly affect feelings of self-reliance (vs. being
dependent on others), self-containment (vs. connections with others), differentiation from
others (vs. similarity), and self-interest (vs. commitment to others). However, we have
less reasons to expect that the economic threat derived by pandemic is linked with
dimensions that have less to do a perceived common fate, such as self-direction (vs.
receptiveness to influence), self-expression (vs. harmony), and consistency (vs.
variability) of self across time. Therefore, we focus only on those dimensions of self-
construal that we consider might have been affected by perceiving that the COVID19
pandemic represents a shared grievance.
The present research
We situate our research in the context of Spain during the first two waves of the
Covid-19 pandemic (May-October 2020). A total of 239.429 people diagnosed with covid
were reported (31 May 2020, start of the first wave), being the third country in Europe
with more confirmed cases after Russia and the United Kingdom (Ministry of health,
Government of Spain 2020a). In the second wave after summer, a total of 1.098.320
8
infected were reported (26 October), being in the same way the third country with the
most confirmed cases after Russia and France (Ministry of health, Government of Spain
2020b). In terms of economic consequences, the pandemic could bring Spain back to
inequality levels similar to those experienced during the economic crisis in 2008 (Oxfam,
2021). This translated into an increase in the relative poverty in Spain of 22.9% (one
million more people below the poverty line). The unemployment caused by the pandemic
is the main generator of inequality and poverty, due to the fall in the income of the most
precarious workers. The increase in unemployment was accentuated in migrants, young
people, women, also doubling in the lowest educational levels (Oxfam, 2021).
The protests derived from this situation relate to the working class as an aggrieved
group (e.g., Marches for dignity; Sabucedo et al., 2017). The pandemic increased the
importance of social positions, situating social class and economic inequality in the centre
of the public debate. Working class identity is a traditional identity among the politicized
lower classes in Spain (especially for members of traditional left-wing political parties).
On the other hand, the emergence of indignados movement in 2011 supposed a political
renovation in many senses (e.g., rejection of classic concepts, emergence of new political
parties...) in that context the identity of the 99% became popular. These are politicized
and emerging identities in contexts where a great generalized injustice is perceived. The
current research offers an opportunity to test in parallel old and new identities against
economic inequality.
We conducted three correlational studies to find out what kind of mechanisms
people use to cope with economic threat during the COVID-19 pandemic. We analyze
the impact on class-related politicized identity at two levels: a classical well-established
identity (i.e., the working class) and a new broader emerging identity (e.g., the 99%).
Additionally, we investigate the role of an interdependent self-construal as a separate path
9
to confront this collective threat. We predicted that these two paths, identity-based and
self-construal, are related to intolerance towards economic inequality and collective
actions.
Figure 1.
Theoretical model that shows the relationship between the collective economic threat and
intolerance towards economic inequality and collective actions through identity and
interdependent self-construal mechanisms.
Study 1
In Study 1
(https://osf.io/sr2nz/?view_only=95056997b7d7411d8be6be0b1dd16ab2), we explored
whether the economic threat generated by the Covid-19 pandemic is related to less
tolerance to inequality and support for social change (Spain, May 2020). Specifically, we
tested whether the perception of economic threat is related to emerging identities against
inequality—i.e., the 99% identity, working class identity— and an interdependent self-
construal. We also tested whether this, in turn, is related to greater intolerance towards
economic inequality and participation in collective actions against inequality.
Method
10
Participants and procedure
An incidental sampling was carried out with a general population in Spain. The
study was conducted through a web link on the Qualtrics platform, and the collaboration
was voluntary and anonymous. Fifty euros were raffled to encourage participation.
We planned to collect a minimum of 300 and a maximum of 400 observations
after exclusions. After removing incomplete data, 368 participants took part in the study.
We excluded five participants from the data analyses because they did not have the
preregistered exclusion criteria requirements: data from participants who are not Spanish
speakers. The final sample consisted of 363 participants (262 women, 96 men and 5
“other”) aged between 18 and 70 years (M = 33.71; SD = 13.96).
Measures1
Economic threat perception. We translated the Financial Threat Scale (FTS)
(Marjanovic et al., 2013) and adapted it to the context of the economic threat caused by
the coronavirus pandemic. The scale is made up of five items with a 5-point scale (1 =
“nothing”; 5 = “a lot/totally”).
We measured the individual threat with five items (e.g., “How much uncertainty
do you feel about your economic situation?”, α = .91), and collective threat with three
items (e.g., “How worried are you about the economic situation in Spain?”, α = .84).
99% and working class identification. First, participants read the definition of
these two identities. In the case of the 99% identity, we defined it as: “The term 99%
claims the majority of the world's population (99%) compared to a very small percentage
(1%) that owns half of the planet's wealth (if wealth were a pie cut in two, the richest 1%
takes possession of one half while the other corresponds to 99% of the world's
inhabitants)”. In the case of working class identity, we defined it as: “The term working
11
class designates the set of workers who work in exchange for a salary in opposition to the
ruling class that owns the majority of the property of economic resources.”.
Afterward, we measured to what extent participants identified with the 99% (α =
.94) and the working class (α = .88) using 3 centrality (e.g., “Being part of the
99%/working class is an important part of my identity”) and 3 solidarity (e.g., “I feel a
bond with the 99%/working class”) items of Leach et al.'s identification scale (2008), and
a general item (e.g., “I identify with the 99%/working class”) on a Likert scale (1 = “Not
at all”; 7 = “Very much”).
Interdependent self-construal. We measured four components of Self Construal
Scale: self-sufficient vs. dependent others (e.g., “I would rather be self-sufficient than
depend on others”), autonomy vs. connections with others, (e.g., “I consider that my
happiness is independent of the happiness of my friends and family”), different vs. similar
(e.g., “I am a unique individual”), self-interest vs. commitment to others items (e.g., “I
would sacrifice my own interest for the benefit of my group”) (α = .71). We used four
items of each component with the highest factor weight (Vignoles et al., 2016) using a 5-
point scale (1 = “It does not describe me at all”; 5 = “It describes me exactly”).
(In)tolerance towards economic inequality. We used a Spanish version of the
Support for Economic Inequality Scale (Wiwad et al., 2019, e.g., “Economic inequality
is causing many of the problems in Spain”, α = .76) using a Likert scale (1 = “Totally
disagree”; 7 = “Totally agree”).
Collective actions. Based on previous measures used in the literature to evaluate
collective actions, formal political participation and activism (Becker et al., 2013; Ekman
& Amnå, 2012), we created eleven items to measure willingness to participate in
collective actions within the framework of economic inequality caused by the pandemic
12
(e.g., “I would participate in peaceful protests that demand the expropriation and
nationalization of all private health companies to improve health care for the entire
population”; α = .91) using a Likert scale (1 = “Never”; 7 = “Very often”).
Sociodemographic measures. Finally, some sociodemographic data were
requested: Subjective socioeconomic status (Adler et al., 2000), political ideology
measured with one item (1 = “Extreme left”; 100 = “Extreme right”), objective social
class based on level on education and income (e.g., “How much net monthly income do
you have? Consider sources of income including wages”), sex, age, mother tongue and
nationality. Sex, age, political orientation and subjective economic status are used as
covariates in our analyses.
In addition, we measured other variables (e.g., health threat perception, humanity
identification, justification of the economic system and orientation to social dominance)
not included in the text, but described in supplementary materials.
Results and discussion
Pearson’s correlations between the main variables and descriptive statistics are
presented in Table 1.
13
Table 1.
Descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations) and bivariate correlations
between the variables measured in Study 1.
Collective
ET
Individual
ET
Working
class Id.
99% Id.
Inter. S-C
Intolerance
EI
Collective
actions
Collective ET
4.16(0.81)
.21**
.31**
.17**
.16**
.21**
.16**
Individual ET
3.03(1.07)
.01
.01
-.07
.04
.02
Working Class Id.
5.97(1.17)
.25**
.09
.32**
.31**
99% Id.
5.09(1.79)
.01
.23**
.26**
Inter. S-C
3.21(0.47)
.14**
.18**
Intolerance EI
5.90(1.00)
.53**
Collective actions
4.88(1.40)
Note: * p ≤ 0.05; **p ≤ 0.01; ET., Economic Threat; Id., Identification; EI., Economic Inequality; Inter. S-C.,
Interdependent Self-Construal; Diagonal shows mean of the participants’ score in the scale and standard
deviation in brackets.
Individual economic threat did not predict significantly intolerance towards
economic inequality β = -.03, p = .542, neither collective action β = .06, p = .185 (see
Supplementary Material). Therefore, we only focus on collective economic threat in the
subsequent studies.
We carried out two parallel mediation analyses with PROCESS (model 4; Hayes,
2013) to test the role of the 99% identity (M1), working class identity (M2) and
interdependent self-construal (M3) as potential mediators of the relationships between
collective economic threat (X) and intolerance towards economic inequality (Y1) and
collective actions (Y2). We used 5,000 bootstrap samples to estimate bias-corrected
standard errors and 95% percentile confidence intervals for the indirect effects.
14
Specifically, we included the covariates sex, age, political orientation and subjective
economic status in our main analyses2.
Concerning the first model, we found that collective economic threat was related
to intolerance towards economic inequality directly and indirectly via working class and
99% identification, but not via interdependent self-construal. Secondly, we found that
collective economic threat was related to collective actions directly and indirectly via
99% identification. On the contrary, it was not mediated by working class identification,
or by interdependent self-construal (see total, direct and indirect effects in Table 3).
These results provided initial evidence that collective economic threat is related
to attitudes toward economic inequality and willingness to participate in collective actions
through the activation of politicized identities. Nevertheless, we should note that the
confidence intervals of our indirect effects were close to zero, so we decided to confirm
the social identity path and again explore the interdependent self-construal path in further
studies.
Study 2
In Study 2
(https://osf.io/auh4r/?view_only=9b9645316e1c4167bcd09d32447ec03a) we
preregistered a confirmatory study in the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic
(Spain, October 2020). We expect that the relation between collective economic threat
and intolerance towards economic inequality is mediated by identification with the
working class (Hypothesis 1a), and by identification with the 99% (Hypothesis 1b).
Similarly, we expect that the relation between collective economic threat and collective
actions is mediated by identification with the 99% (Hypothesis 2). Further, with
15
exploratory purposes, we analyze the working class identity and interdependent self-
construal as mediators in our models 3.
Method
Participants and procedure
The procedure was similar to Study 1. To achieve a power of .80 (considering an
alpha level of .05), for detecting a medium-large effect size on path a = .40 and for
detecting a medium effect size on path b = .20, we needed at least 202 participants (Fritz
& MacKinnon, 2007). We planned to recruit a minimum of 250 participants to further
increase our statistical power.
Seven hundred and two participants finished the study, of which we excluded
thirty-six participants from the data analyses because they did not have the preregistered
exclusion criteria requirements: data from participants who are not Spanish speakers. The
final sample consisted of 666 participants. As we planned to recruit 250 participants for
Study 2, we decide to use the first 250 participants in date order to corroborate the
hypotheses referred to in Study 2 and analyze the rest as confirmatory in Study 3.
Measures
Using the same measures described in Study 1 we
evaluated collective economic threat perception (α = .79), individual economic threat (α
= .90), 99% identification (α = .95), working class identification (α = .88), interdependent
self-construal (α = .70), intolerance towards economic inequality (α = .76), collective
actions (α = .91) and sociodemographics. In addition, we measured other variables that
were excluded from the main text (e.g., emotions; group efficacy; community-focused
collective actions; see Supplementary Material).
16
Results and discussion
We carried out Pearson’s correlations between the main variables and descriptive
statistics (see Table 2).
Table 2.
Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations between the variables measured in
Study 2 and 3.
Study 2
M (SD)
Study 3
M (SD)
Collective
ET
Individual
ET
Working
Class Id.
99%
Id.
Inter
S-C
Intolerance
EI
Collective
actions
Collective ET
4.05(0.77)
4.03(0.81)
-
.22**
.16**
.12*
.03
.26**
.10*
Individual ET
3.45(0.94)
3.42(0.98)
.26**
-
.09
.03
-.07
.20**
.12*
Working
Class Id.
5.65(1.28)
5.52(1.38)
.15*
.09
-
.03
.04
.34**
.33**
99% Id.
4.80(1.91)
4.27(2.00)
.09
.10
.05
-
.01
.07
.19**
Inter S-C
3.03(0.45)
3.04(0.43)
.14*
.16*
.11
.14*
-
.07
.12**
Intolerance
EC
6.01(1.00)
5.85(1.07
.16*
.07
.35**
.23**
.20**
-
.51**
Collective
actions
4.54(1.45)
4.54(1.45)
.01
.18**
.39**
.08
.17**
.46**
-
Note: * p ≤ 0.05; **p ≤ 0.01; ET., Economic Threat; Id., Identification; EI., Economic Inequality; Inter S-C.,
Interdependent Self-Construal. The results of Study 2 are below the diagonal and the results of Study 3 are
above the diagonal.
Similar to Study 1, we conducted two parallel mediation analyses4 with PROCESS
(model 4; Hayes, 2013) to test our pre-registered hypotheses.
Results showed that collective economic threat was related to intolerance towards
economy inequality directly and indirectly with identification with the working class
(supporting Hypothesis 1a) but not with identification with the 99% (against Hypothesis
1b) or interdependent self-construal. In addition, collective economic threat was not
17
directly related to collective actions but indirectly with working class identification. On
the contrary, it was not mediated by identification with the 99%, thus providing no
support for Hypothesis 2, or by interdependent self-construal (see total, direct and indirect
effects in Table 3).
The results of Study 2 showed that collective economic threat was related to
identification with the working class and this in turn with a greater intolerance and
participation in collective actions against economic inequality. Furthermore, we find this
relationship to be mediated by the interdependent self-construal, but not by the 99% as
we had predicted based on Study 1’s results.
Study 3
In Study 3 (https://osf.io/mqbd3/?view_only=f4c27c8c8db14ba8ab2375fa35b1a40a)
(Spain, October 2020) we wanted to confirm the role of working class identity as a
mediator of the impact of collective economic threat on intolerance towards economic
inequality (Hypothesis 1a) and confirm its role in the support of collective action after the
economic threat (Hypothesis 2a). Also, the role of interdependent self-construal, as a
second parallel mediator in explaining both intolerance towards economic inequality
(Hypothesis 1b) and collective action against economic inequality (Hypothesis 2b) as a
context of economic collective threat. We explored the role of 99% identification as a
mediator to clarify the inconsistencies found in Studies 1 and 2.
Method
Participants and procedure
The procedure was the same as in Study 2. The final sample of Study 3 consisted
of 416 participants (286 women, 123 men, 7 other) aged between 18 and 62 (M = 22.88,
SD = 5.66).
18
Measures
Using the same measures described in Study 2 we
evaluated collective economic threat perception (α = .85), individual economic threat (α
= .88), 99% identification (α = .90), working class identification (α = .90), interdependent
self-construal (α = .68), (in)tolerance towards economic inequality (α = .74), collective
actions. (α = .91) and sociodemographics.
Results and discussion
We carried out Pearson’s correlations between the main variables and descriptive
statistics (see Table 2).
Similar to Study 2 we conducted two parallel mediation analyses with PROCESS
(model 4; Hayes, 2013).
The results showed that collective economic threat was related to intolerance
towards economic inequality directly and indirectly via working class identification,
which supports Hypothesis 1a. However, it was not mediated via interdependent self-
construal, which is contrary to Hypothesis 1b, or by 99% identification. In addition,
collective economic threat was not related directly to collective actions but indirectly via
working class identification (supporting Hypothesis 2a) and 99% identification. On the
contrary, it was not mediated by interdependent self-construal, thus providing no support
for Hypothesis 2b (see total, direct and indirect effects in Table 3).
Across studies, there was evidence that working class identity mediated the
relation between collective economic threat and our criterion variables: intolerance
towards economic inequality and collective actions. However, the results regarding 99%
identification and interdependent self-construal as mediators are less consistent. Given
19
the heterogeneity of some results, we decided to conduct a pooled analysis of the three
studies to confirm the patterns that hold across samples.
Pooled analysis
To provide insights into the robustness of the central effects we pooled the data of
Studies 1-3 following an integrative data analysis approach (Curran & Hussong, 2009).
The total sample was composed of 1029 participants, (721 women, 291 men, 17 other)
aged between 18 and 70 (M = 26.79, SD = 10.75). We carried out the same analysis
strategy as in Studies 1-3 and tested prerregistered Hypotheses 1 and 2 of Studies 2-3.
We conducted a sensitivity analysis for a mediation analysis with three mediators
using “pwr2ppl” package for RStudio (Aberson, 2019) to determine the detectable effect
size. With α = 0.05 and power 1-β (M1 = 0.80; M2 = .80; M3 = .80), and with 1029
participants, we are able to detect a minimum effect size between r = .10 and r = .15. As
such, we think we have enough power to detect the hypothesized effects.
Results showed that collective economic threat was related to intolerance towards
economic inequality directly and indirectly via working class and 99% identification and
interdependent self-construal, supporting the model proposed in Hypothesis 1. In the
same way, collective economic threat was related to collective actions indirectly (but not
directly) via working class and 99% identification and interdependent self-construal,
supporting the model proposed in Hypothesis 2.
A summary of the results appears in Table 3 and Figure 1.
20
Figure 2.
Identification with the working class, 99% identities and interdependent self-construal as
mediators between collective economic threat, intolerance towards economic inequality
and collective actions in Studies 1-3 and pooled analysis.
Note: S1 = Study 1; S2 = Study 2; S3 = Study 3; P = Pooled Analysis * p ≤ 0.05; **p ≤. 01; NS = Non significative
21
Table 3.
Summary of total, direct and indirect effect of collective economic threat and intolerance towards economic inequality, collective actions, mediated
by 99% and working class identification, Studies 1-2-3 and pooled analyses.
Relationship between collective economic threat and intolerance towards economic inequality via working class identity, 99% identity and interdependent self-construal.
Study 1 (N = 363)
Study 2 (N = 250)
Study 3 (N = 416)
Pooled analyses (N = 1029)
Effect
SE
LLCI
ULCI
Effect
SE
LLCI
ULCI
Effect
SE
LLCI
ULCI
Effect
SE
LLCI
ULCI
Total effect
.23
.06
.12
.35
.23
.07
.09
.37
.32
.06
.21
.43
.21
.03
.16
.27
Direct effect
.12
.06
<.01
.24
.15
.07
.02
.30
.29
.06
.18
.41
.16
.03
.11
.22
IE Working Class
.07
.03
.02
.14
.03
.02
<.01
.07
.03
.02
.01
.07
.03
.01
.02
.05
IE 99%
.02
.01
<.01
.05
.02
.01
<-.01
.05
-.01
.01
-.02
.01
.01
<.01
<.01
.02
IE Interdependent self-construal
.02
.01
<-.01
.05
.03
.02
<-.01
.06
<-.00
.01
-01
.01
.01
<.01
<.01
.02
Relationship between collective economic threat and collective actions via working class identity, 99% identity and interdependent self-construal
Effect
SE
LLCI
ULCI
Effect
SE
LLCI
ULCI
Effect
SE
LLCI
ULCI
Effect
SE
LLCI
ULCI
Total effect
.26
.08
.11
.41
.04
.10
-.16
.24
.11
.07
-.04
.25
.09
.03
.03
.14
Direct effect
.16
.08
.01
.32
-.04
.10
-.24
.15
.05
.07
-.10
.19
.04
.03
-.01
.09
IE. Working Class
.04
.03
-.02
.12
.04
.03
<.01
.11
.04
.02
.01
.09
.03
.01
.01
.04
IE. 99%
.03
.02
<.01
.07
-.01
.01
-.04
.02
.02
.01
<.01
.05
.01
<.01
<.01
.02
IE. Interdependent self-construal
.02
.02
<-.01
.06
.05
.02
.01
.10
<-.01
.01
-.02
.02
.01
<.01
<.01
.02
Note: IE= Indirect effect
Fighting inequalities in times of pandemic
In sum, the results of the pooled analyses confirmed that the social identity and
interdependent self-construal paths contribute to understanding the relationship between
collective economic threat in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and responses
against inequality such as intolerance towards economic inequality and collective actions.
General discussion
Among the possible ways to deal with economic threat, our results show evidence
of two possible mechanisms to cope with it: via social identification and interdependent
self-construal processes. Specifically, we analyzed how these two mechanisms are fuelled
by collective economic threat and, in turn, are related to a greater intolerance towards
economic inequality and collective actions against it. Despite the negative consequences
of the pandemic, based on our results we argue that this pandemic has reinforced the sense
of community and, above all, has promoted a rejection of inequality.
In this paper we made two important contributions. First, we showed that
politicized identities linked to economic inequality serve to channel collective efforts to
deal with economic threat. COVID-19 threat may induce or exacerbate intergroup
tensions and hostility (Bavel et al., 2020) but the perception of a shared or common
identity with various social groups during the pandemic can prevent such tensions
(Dovidio et al., 2020). The economic threat derived from the pandemic implies a shared
fate, but the different effects of such threats on people—depending on their social and
economic status—might be perceived as a shared injustice, however future research
should address this directly. When there is an injustice or shared grievance, this identity
also has a politicized value, further increasing the value of cohesion that it mobilizes for
protests (van Zomeren et al., 2008). This is especially relevant if we focus on social class
as a representative element of people’s identities (Easterbrook et al., 2020; Manstead,
Fighting inequalities in times of pandemic
2018). The working class has been marginalized, eroding its communal and collective
aspects (Jones, 2011). This reduces the salience and clarity of traditional classes (Leach
et al., 2008), promoting the perception that status difference is an individual—instead of
a collective—process (Jetten et al., 2013). Our results suggest that class identities that
promote social change arise in response to the pandemic economic threats.
Second, we found evidence that social change is also fuelled by changes at the
self-construal level (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Singelis, 1994). People who perceived a
high collective threat also showed a higher interdependent self-construal, in line with
previous research in other contexts (Oishi & Komiya, 2017). Interdependent self-
construal, in turn, was related to an increase in intolerance towards inequality and
participation in collective actions. These results suggest that seeing yourself as connected
to others, fitting in with others, perceiving yourself as similar, and sacrificing personal
goals may trigger shared goals to face inequalities. We should note that we did not include
all the dimensions of interdependent self-construal, just those that we expected were
related to the idea of common fate.
It is also important to highlight that in these studies we use social identity and self-
construal as two different and independent processes. People with an interdependent self-
construal may have a greater tendency for thinking in group—rather than in individual—
terms (Markus & Kitayama, 1991), which might suggest that social identity and
interdependent self-construal are positively related. However, under specific
circumstances those who are more independent might be the ones who identify more with
social groups (McAuliffe et al., 2003). Future research is needed to clarify the relations
between these two constructs. Importantly, we argue that beyond the potential link
between them, social identity and self-construal can separately impact on intolerance
Fighting inequalities in times of pandemic
towards inequality, and participation in collective actions as a response to collective
economic threat.
Applied implications
Our results suggest that people perceive high economic threat caused by the
coronavirus pandemic, particularly the collective economic threat. Thus, individuals are
not only worried about health issues caused by the pandemic, but also about the economy.
However, the media focus their messages about the pandemic on health-related issues
undermining the socio-economic impact of it. A broader coverage of the pandemics
implications directly addressing social inequalities would help to promote active coping.
Moreover, economic threat triggers collective actions via class identity and an
interdependent self. Thus, social awareness of economic threat can be a tool for social
movements to mobilize people to protest against economic inequality and build a sense
of community. This is a socially constructive response that contravenes the tendency to
increase prejudice and ethnocentrism as a consequence of Covid threat (Lemay et al.,
2021). Therefore, we emphasize the benefits of promoting this route to social coping via
awareness of shared economic grievances and social class identities instead of focusing
on other levels of categorization (e.g., nationality).
Limitations
Among the possible limitations of our study, the indirect effects of shared identity,
especially the 99% identity, and interdependent self-construal as mediators are small and
inconsistent across studies. Even so, this is solved in a parsimonious way in the pooled
analysis. Importantly, all our results are correlational, so the inference about causality is
limited. Furthermore, in these contexts of polarization some disruptive individual
identities for social change become relevant (e.g., covid-deniers) that should be tested in
Fighting inequalities in times of pandemic
further research. Finally, a more diverse sample in other contexts could help to
corroborate the generalizability of our findings. However, the data collection occurred at
an extraordinary time and it is a challenge to know if these results could be replicated in
another context.
In summary, economic threat derived from COVID-19 pandemic (in its first
stages) is related to an increase in prosocial and conflict responses—a greater intolerance
towards economic inequality and a greater involvement in collective actions to reduce
inequalities. In this process, the activation of politicized identities (e.g., classic identities,
working class; and the new 99%) and interdependent self-construal play a key role. This
can lead to a stronger bond with others and a greater awareness of the needs of others,
which can allow us to jointly face multiple challenges in our societies.
Fighting inequalities in times of pandemic
Footnotes
1. All pre-registered measures are translated into English in the Supplementary
Material.
2. We introduced political orientation to control for the existing overlap between
politicized identification and political ideology (Moreira et al., 2018). Further,
we added subjective economic status (SES) as a covariate to control for the
structural aspect of class in the participants. SES, age and sex are important
predictors of the importance that people place on different types of identities
within their self-concepts (Easterbrook et al., 2020), and are related to our
criterion variables (García-Sánchez et al., 2020) so we included them to adjust
for potential background influences.
3. We did not prerregister that collective economic threat will increase collective
action intentions through the activation of the working class identification due to
the results of Study 1. However, we conducted this exploratory analysis because
it is theoretically relevant. In addition, we wanted to explore the interdependent
self-construal as a mediator of collective actions focused on the community.
4. We have decided to include the models in parallel instead of simple ones to
simplify the presentation. The results in parallel models were similar to simple
models.
Fighting inequalities in times of pandemic
References
Aberson, C. L. (2019). Applied power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd
Edition). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Adams-Prassl, A., Boneva, T., Golin, M., & Rauh, C. (2020). Inequality in the impact
of the coronavirus shock: Evidence from real time surveys. Journal of Public
Economics, 189, 104245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2020.104245
Adler, N. E., Epel, E. S., Castellazzo, G., & Ickovics, J. R. (2000). Relationship of
subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological
functioning: Preliminary data in healthy white women. Health Psychology:
Official Journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological
Association, 19(6), 586-592. https://doi.org/10.1037//0278-6133.19.6.586
Aspachs, O., Durante, R., Graziano, A., Mestres, J., Reynal-Querol, M., & Montalvo, J.
G. (2021). Tracking the impact of COVID-19 on economic inequality at high
frequency. PLOS ONE, 16(3), e0249121.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249121
Bavel, J. J. V., Baicker, K., Boggio, P. S., Capraro, V., Cichocka, A., Cikara, M.,
Crockett, M. J., Crum, A. J., Douglas, K. M., Druckman, J. N., Drury, J., Dube,
O., Ellemers, N., Finkel, E. J., Fowler, J. H., Gelfand, M., Han, S., Haslam, S.
A., Jetten, J., … Willer, R. (2020). Using social and behavioural science to
support COVID-19 pandemic response. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(5), 460-
471. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0884-z
Becker, J. C., Wright, S. C., Lubensky, M. E., & Zhou, S. (2013). Friend or ally:
Whether cross-group contact undermines collective action depends on what
advantaged group members say (o don't say). Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 39(4), 442-455. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213477155
Fighting inequalities in times of pandemic
Bukowski, M., de Lemus, S., Rodríguez-Bailón, R., Willis, G. B., & Alburquerque, A.
(2019). When lack of control enhances closeness to others: The case of
unemployment and economic threat. European Journal of Social Psychology,
49(6), 1144-1160. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2563
Curran, P. J., & Hussong, A. M. (2009). Integrative data analysis: The simultaneous
analysis of multiple data sets. Psychological Methods, 14(2), 119-100.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015914
Curtin, N., Kende, A., & Kende, J. (2016). Navigating Multiple Identities: The
Simultaneous Influence of Advantaged and Disadvantaged Identities on
Politicization and Activism. Journal of Social Issues, 72(2), 264-285.
https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12166
Dovidio, J. F., Ikizer, E. G., Kunst, J. R., & Levy, A. (2020) Common identity and
Humanity. In J. Jetten, S. D. Reicher, S. A. Haslam, & T. Cruwys
(Eds.), Together apart: The psychology of Covid-19. (pp. 141-148). SAGE.
Drury, J., Brown, R., González, R., & Miranda, D. (2016). Emergent social identity and
observing social support predict social support provided by survivors in a
disaster: Solidarity in the 2010 Chile earthquake. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 46(2), 209-223. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2146
Drury, J., & Reicher, S. (2000). Collective action and psychological change: The
emergence of new social identities. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39(4),
579-604. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466600164642
Easterbrook, M. J., Kuppens, T., & Manstead, A. S. R. (2020). Socioeconomic status
and the structure of the self-concept. British Journal of Social Psychology,
59(1), 66-86. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12334
Fighting inequalities in times of pandemic
Ekman, J., & Amnå, E. (2012). Political participation and civic engagement: Towards a
new typology. Human Affairs, 22, 238-300. https://doi.org/10.2478/s13374-012-
0024-1
Fritsche, I., Jonas, E., & Kessler, T. (2011). Collective reactions to threat: Implications
for intergroup conflict and for solving societal crises. Social Issues and Policy
Review, 5(1), 101-136. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-2409.2011.01027.x
Fritsche, I., & Jugert, P. (2017). The consequences of economic threat for motivated
social cognition and action. Inequality and social class, 18, 31-36.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.07.027
Fritsche, I., Moya, M., Bukowski, M., Jugert, P., de Lemus, S., Decker, O., Valor-
Segura, I., & Navarro-Carrillo, G. (2017). The great recession and group-based
control: Converting personal helplessness into social class in-group trust and
collective action. Journal of Social Issues, 73(1), 117-137.
https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12207
Fritz, M. S., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2007). Required sample size to detect the mediated
effect. Psychological Science, 18(3), 233-239. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
9280.2007.01882.x
García-Sánchez, E., Osborne, D., Willis, G. B., & Rodríguez-Bailón, R. (2020).
Attitudes towards redistribution and the interplay between perceptions and
beliefs about inequality. British Journal of Social Psychology, 59(1), 111-136.
https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12326
Hawdon, J., & Ryan, J. (2011). Social relations that generate and sustain solidarity after
a mass tragedy. Social Forces, 89(4), 1363-1384.
https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/89.4.1363
Fighting inequalities in times of pandemic
Hayes, A. F., & Scharkow, M. (2013). The relative trustworthiness of inferential tests of
the indirect effect in statistical mediation analysis: Does method really matter?
Psychological Science, 24(10), 1918-1927.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613480187
Inequality.org. (2021). Covid and inequality. Retrieved from:
https://inequality.org/facts/inequality-and-covid-19/
Jetten, J., Iyer, A., Branscombe, N. R., & Zhang, A. (2013). How the disadvantaged
appraise group-based exclusion: The path from legitimacy to illegitimacy.
European Review of Social Psychology, 24(1), 194-224.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2013.840977
Jetten, J., Reicher, S. D., Haslam, S. A., & Cruwys, T. Together Apart: The Psychology
of COVID-19. SAGE.
Jones, O. (2011). Chavs: The demonization of the working class. Verso books.
Leach, C. W., van Zomeren, M., Zebel, S., Vliek, M. L. W., Pennekamp, S. F., Doosje,
B., Ouwerkerk, J. W., & Spears, R. (2008). Group-level self-definition and self-
investment: A hierarchical (multicomponent) model of in-group identification.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(1), 144-165.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.144
Lemay, E. P., Kruglanski, A. W., Molinario, E., Agostini, M., Bélanger, J. J., Gützkow,
B., Kreienkamp, J., Margit Reitsema, A., R. vanDellen, M., Collaboration, P., &
Leander, N. P. (2021). The role of values in coping with health and economic
threats of COVID-19. The Journal of Social Psychology, 1-18.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2021.1979454
Manstead, A. S. R. (2018). The psychology of social class: How socioeconomic status
impacts thought, feelings, and behaviour. British Journal of Social Psychology,
Fighting inequalities in times of pandemic
57(2), 267-291. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12251@10.1111/(ISSN)2044-
8295.psychological_impact_of_inequality
Marjanovic, Z., Greenglass, E. R., Fiksenbaum, L., & Bell, C. M. (2013). Psychometric
evaluation of the Financial Threat Scale (FTS) in the context of the great
recession. Journal of Economic Psychology, 36, 1-10.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2013.02.005
Markus, H. R., & Hamedani, M. G. (2007). Sociocultural psychology: The dynamic
interdependence among self systems and social systems. En Handbook of
cultural psychology (pp. 3-39). The Guilford Press.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition,
emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224-253.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (2010). Cultures and selves: A cycle of mutual
constitution. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(4), 420-430.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610375557
McAuliffe, B. J., Jetten, J., Hornsey, M. J., & Hogg, M. A. (2003). Individualist and
collectivist norms: When it’s ok to go your own way. European Journal of
Social Psychology, 33(1), 57-70. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.129
Ministry of Health, Government of Spain (2020a). Actualicación nº 122. Enfermedad
por el coronavirus (COVID-19) 31.05.2020. Retrieved from
https://www.sanidad.gob.es/profesionales/saludPublica/ccayes/alertasActual/nC
ov/documentos/Actualizacion_122_COVID-19.pdf
Ministry of Health, Government of Spain (2020b). Actualicación nº 236. Enfermedad
por el coronavirus (COVID-19) 26.10.2020. Retrieved from
Fighting inequalities in times of pandemic
https://www.sanidad.gob.es/profesionales/saludPublica/ccayes/alertasActual/nC
ov/documentos/Actualizacion_236_COVID-19.pdf
Moreira, P. de L., Rique Neto, J., Sabucedo, J. M., & Camino, C. P. dos S. (2018).
Moral judgment, political ideology and collective action. Scandinavian Journal
of Psychology, 59(6), 610-620. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12479
Marx, K., & Engels, F. (2004). Manifiesto comunista. España: Akal (Original work
published 1848)
Ntontis, E., Drury, J., Amlôt, R., Rubin, G. J., Williams, R., & Saavedra, P. (2021).
Collective resilience in the disaster recovery period: Emergent social identity
and observed social support are associated with collective efficacy, well-being,
and the provision of social support. British Journal of Social Psychology, 60(3),
1075-1095. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12434
Oishi, S., & Komiya, A. (2017). Natural disaster risk and collectivism. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 48(8), 1263-1270.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022117719496
Oxfam Intermon (2021). La pobreza severa podría aumentar en España en casi 800.000
personas y llegar a 5,1 millones por la COVID-19. Retrieved from
https://www.oxfamintermon.org/es/nota-de-prensa/pobreza-severa-aumenta-
espana-covid-19
Oxfam Intermon (2022). Inequality kills. The unparalleled action needed to combat
unprecedented inequality in the wake of COVID-19. Retrieved from
https://policy-practice.oxfam.org/resources/inequality-kills-the-unparalleled-
action-needed-to-combat-unprecedented-inequal-621341/
Piketty, T. (2013). El capital en el XXI. S.L. Fondo de Cultura Económica de España.
Reicher, S. D. (1996). ‘The Battle of Westminster’: Developing the social identity
model of crowd behaviour in order to explain the initiation and development of
Fighting inequalities in times of pandemic
collective conflict. European Journal of Social Psychology, 26(1), 115-134.
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199601)26:1<115::AID-
EJSP740>3.0.CO;2-Z
Reicher, S. D., & Drury, J. (2020). Don't personalise, collectivise! The
psychologist…The British psychological society. Retrieved from
https://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/dont-personalise-collectivise
Resta, E., Mula, S., Baldner, C., Di Santo, D., Agostini, M., Bélanger, J. J., Gützkow,
B., Kreienkamp, J., Abakoumkin, G., Khaiyom, J. H. A., Ahmedi, V., Akkas,
H., Almenara, C. A., Atta, M., Bagci, S. C., Basel, S., Kida, E. B., Bernardo, A.
B. I., Buttrick, N. R., … Leander, N. P. (2021). ‘We are all in the same boat’:
How societal discontent affects intention to help during the COVID-19
pandemic. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 1-16.
https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2572
Rodríguez-Bailón, R. (2020). Inequality viewed through the mirror of COVID-19 (La
desigualdad ante el espejo del COVID-19 ). International Journal of Social
Psychology, 35(3), 647-655. https://doi.org/10.1080/02134748.2020.1796298
Sabucedo, J.-M., Barreto, I., Seoane, G., Alzate, M., Gómez-Román, C., & Vilas, X.
(2017). Political Protest in Times of Crisis. Construction of New Frames of
Diagnosis and Emotional Climate. Frontiers in Psychology, 8.
https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01568
Sánchez-Rodríguez, Á., Rodríguez-Bailón, R., & Willis, G. B. (2020). Economic
inequality affects perceived normative values. Group Processes & Intergroup
Relations, 1368430220968141. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430220968141
Sánchez‐Rodríguez, Á., Willis, G. B., Jetten, J., & Rodríguez‐Bailón, R. (2019).
Economic inequality enhances inferences that the normative climate is
Fighting inequalities in times of pandemic
individualistic and competitive. European Journal of Social Psychology, 49,
1114-1127. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2557
Simon, B., & Klandermans, B. (2001). Politicized collective identity: A social
psychological analysis. American Psychologist, 56(4), 319-331.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.4.319
Singelis, T. M. (1994). The Measurement of independent and interdependent self-
construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(5), 580-591.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167294205014
Standing, G. (2013). El precariado: Una nueva clase social. Editorial Pasado y
Presente.
Stephens, N. M., Markus, H. R., & Phillips, L. T. (2014). Social class culture cycles:
How three gateway contexts shape selves and fuel inequality. Annual Review of
Psychology, 65(1), 611-634. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-
115143
Stevenson, C., Wakefield, J. R. H., Felsner, I., Drury, J., & Costa, S. (2021).
Collectively coping with coronavirus: Local community identification predicts
giving support and lockdown adherence during the COVID-19 pandemic.
British Journal of Social Psychology, 60(4), 1403-1418.
https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12457
Stiglitz, J. E. (2012). El precio de la desigualdad: El 1 % de población tiene lo que el
99 % necesita. Penguin Random House Grupo Editorial España.
Stollberg, J., Fritsche, I., & Jonas, E. (2017). The groupy shift: conformity to liberal in-
group norms as a group-based response to threatened personal control. Social
Cognition, 35, 374-394. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2017.35.4.374
Fighting inequalities in times of pandemic
Stürmer, S., & Simon, B. (2009). Pathways to collective protest: Calculation,
identification, or emotion? A critical analysis of the role of group-based anger in
social movement participation. Journal of Social Issues, 65(4), 681-705.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2009.01620.x
van Stekelenburg, J., & Klandermans, B. (2013). The social psychology of protest.
Current Sociology, 61(5-6), 886-905.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392113479314
van Stekelenburg, J., & Klandermans, B. (2017). Individuals in Movements: A Social
Psychology of Contention. En C. Roggeband & B. Klandermans (Eds.),
Handbook of Social Movements Across Disciplines (pp. 103-139). Springer
International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57648-0_5
van Stekelenburg, J., Klandermans, B., & van Dijk, W. W. (2009). Context matters:
Explaining how and why mobilizing context influences motivational dynamics.
Journal of Social Issues, 65(4), 815-838. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-
4560.2009.01626.x
van Zomeren, M., Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2008). Toward an integrative social
identity model of collective action: A quantitative research synthesis of three
socio-psychological perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 134(4), 504-535.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.504
Vignoles, V. L., Owe, E., Becker, M., Smith, P. B., Easterbrook, M. J., Brown, R.,
González, R., Didier, N., Carrasco, D., Cadena, M. P., Lay, S., Schwartz, S. J.,
Des Rosiers, S. E., Villamar, J. A., Gavreliuc, A., Zinkeng, M., Kreuzbauer, R.,
Baguma, P., Martin, M., … Bond, M. H. (2016). Beyond the ‘east–west’
dichotomy: Global variation in cultural models of selfhood. Journal of
Fighting inequalities in times of pandemic
Experimental Psychology: General, 145(8), 966-1000.
https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000175
Wiwad, D., Mercier, B., Maraun, M. D., Robinson, A. R., Piff, P. K., Aknin, L. B., &
Shariff, A. F. (2019). The Support for Economic Inequality Scale: Development
and adjudication. PLOS ONE, 14(6), e0218685.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0218685
Wright, E. O. (2018). Comprender las clases sociales. Ediciones Akal.
Žižek, S. (2020). Pandemic!: COVID-19 Shakes the World. John Wiley & Sons.
Fighting inequalities in times of pandemic
Supplementary Materials
pertaining to
Fighting inequalities in times of pandemic: The role of the politicized identities and
interdependent self-construal in coping with economic threat
This section contains the supplementary material in addition to the manuscript. (1)
Specifically, measures, hypotheses and analyses of Studies 1-3 that have been discarded
to facilitate understanding from the original manuscript for being inconsistent.
Study 1: Measures (e.g., health threat perception; humanity identification;
orientation to social dominance; justification to economic system) and descriptive
statistics and correlation.
Study 2-3: Measures (e.g., collective efficacy; emotions; Community collective
actions), hypothesis discarded and parallel mediation analyses.
(2) You can also find the Social and Community Impact Statement: (a) a
Relevance Statement of up to 150 words that explains why the article is relevant to
communities; (b) practical indications and examples on how to implement the content
of the article in community settings. In English and Spanish
(3) In the final section of this document all the measurement materials appear,
including the items used for each variable.
38
(1) DESCRIPTION OF ADDITIONAL MEASURES AND RESULTS
Study 1
Measures
Here we discuss measures that were included in the first study that are not
described in the main text
Health threat perception. We translated and adapted the Financial Threat Scale
(FTS) (Marjanovic et al., 2013) to the context of the health threat caused by the
coronavirus pandemic. The scale is made up of five items with a Likert scale from 1 to 5.
We measured health threat perception. On the one hand, we measured the personal threat
with five items (e.g., “How much uncertainty do you feel about your health?”, α = .88),
and on the other hand, the collective threat with three items (e.g., “How worried are you
about the health situation in Spain?”, α = .84).
Humanity identification. First, we defined humanity identity “The term
humanity comes from a Latin word related to the nature of the human race. It serves to
mention the set of human beings that inhabit the planet”. After, we measured, with a
Likert scale (1 = Not at all; 7 = Very much) to what extent did participants identify with
humanity (α = .89). We measured humanity identification with the centrality and
solidarity items of Leach et al., (2008) scale adapted to humanity identity. Seven items
made up the measured; three captured the idea of centrality (e.g., “The fact of being part
of humanity is an important part of my identity”), and three more captured the idea of
solidarity (e.g., “I feel a bond with humanity”). In addition, we included a general item
(e.g., “I identify with (in-group)”).
Orientation to social dominance. We used the Social Dominance Orientation
scale (SDO) (Pratto et al., 1994) translated into Spanish. The scale consisted of sixteen
39
items (Alpha = .82) formed by two main components; Group dominance (α = .72) (e.g.,
“The value of some groups of people is greater than that of others”) and Opposition to
equality (Alpha = .84) (e.g., “We should do our best to equalize the conditions for
different groups”), with a Likert scale (1 = Totally disagree; 7 = Totally agree).
Justification of the economic system. To measure the general ideological
tendency to legitimize economic inequality we used a reduced version of the original
Economic System Justification scale (ESJ, Jost & Thompson, 2000) adapted and
validated into Spanish (Jaume et al., 2012). The scale consisted of seven items (α = .79)
(e.g., “If people work hard, they almost always get what they want”) with a Likert scale
(1 = Totally disagree; 7 = Totally agree).
Results
A summary of the descriptive statistics and correlation between the variables of
our Study 1 is presented in Table 1.
40
Table 1. Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations between the variables measured in Study 1.
CET
IET
CHT
IHT
WC Id.
99% Id.
H id.
Inter S-C
Intol EI
Coll
actions
OSD
JES
CET
4.15(0.81)
.21**
.47**
.29**
.31**
.17**
.01
.16**
.21**
.16**
-.07
.01
IET
3.03(1.07)
.10
.09
.01
.01
-.08
-.07
.04
.02
.12*
.07
CHT
3.97(0.84)
.46**
.25**
.14*
.12*
.10*
.17**
.19**
-.07
.01
IHT
2.85(0.93)
.19**
.12*
.10
.12*
-.02
.01
.08
.17**
WC Id.
5.97(1.17)
.25**
.21**
.09
.32**
.31**
-.20**
-.14*
99% Id.
5.09(1.79)
.16**
.01
.23**
.26**
-.11*
-.09
H id.
6.03(1.16)
.20
.07
.11*
-.21**
-.03
Inter S-C
3.12(0.47)
.14**
.18**
-.14**
-.18**
Intol EC
5.90(1.00)
.53**
-.54**
-.39**
Coll actions
4.88(1.40)
-.45**
-.42**
OSD
2.07(0.77)
.44**
JES
2.40(0.74)
Note: * p ≤ 0.05; **p ≤ 0.01; CET., Collective Economic Threat; IET., Individual Economic Threat; CHT., Collective Health Threat; IHT., Individual Health Threat; WC Id., Working class
identification; 99% id., 99% identification; H id., Humanity identification; Inter. S-C., Interdependent Self-Construal; Intol EC., Intolerance towards Economic Inequality; Coll actions.,
Collective actions; OSD., Orientation to Social Dominance; JES., Justification of Economic System. Diagonal shows mean of the participants’ score in the scale and standard deviation
in brackets.
41
Study 2 & 3
Pre-registered hypothesis discarded:
Hypothesis 3. We predicted two indirect effects in parallel. The relation between
the collective economic threat and the community collective actions are mediated, in the
one hand, by the levels of identification with the identity of the working class, and on the
other hand, by the interdependent self-construal. In the sense that the perception of
economic collective threat because of COVID-19 will lead participants to identity more
strongly with the working class and to show more interdependent self-construal, and both
will lead to increase the willingness to participate in community collective actions.
Hypothesis 4, 5 y 6. We predicted a significant mean difference on the
participant’s perception of illusion, hope and indignation between the first and second
waves of pandemic. We expected that the emotions of illusion and hope that the
participants remember having felt in the first wave of the pandemic will be significantly
greater that the emotions of illusion and hope that participants felt in the second wave of
the pandemic. Also, the emotions of indignation that the participants remember having
felt in the first wave of the pandemic will be significantly lower than the emotions of
indignation that participants felt in the second one.
Hypothesis 7. We predicted a significant mean difference of collective efficacy
between the first and second waves of pandemic. We expected that the collective efficacy
that the participants remember having perceived in the first wave of the pandemic will be
significantly greater than the collective efficacy that the participants perceived in the
second one.
Measures
42
In the same way as in Study 1, some measures and results did not appear in the
main text. Here we discuss measures that were included in the Study 2-3 that are not
described in the main text
Collective efficacy. We used four items translated into Spanish (Stolleberg et al.,
2015) (e.g., “Together, the citizens, we are stronger”). We measured in two different
ways. First, we asked participants to recall the first wave of the pandemic (Study 2: α =
.76; Study 3: α = .82) and, second, we asked how they perceive it in the current wave
(Study 2: α = .82; Study 3: α = .84).
Emotions. In addition, we included three items to measure hope (“Hope that as a
society a change of course will be considered”) (Study 2: r = .18 p = .005; Study 3: r =
.211, p < .001), illusion (“Illusion that things could change”) (Study 2: r = .147, p = .021;
Study 3: r = .133, p < .01) and indignation (“Indignation and the impact of the pandemic
because the pandemic exacerbates economic inequality”) (Study 2: r = .645, p < .001;
Study 3: r = .618, p < .001). Following the same logic than in the previous measure, we
asked participants to recall the emotions that they experienced during the first wave of
pandemic, and second one.
Community collective actions. We also measured community collective actions
with four items (e.g. It would participate in neighbourhood groups that have been formed
to help with purchases for the elderly and the population at risk; Study 2: α = .88; Study
3: α = .87).
Results
Some results do not appear in the main manuscript due to facilitate of
understanding or inconsistent results.
Individual and collective economic threat antecedents
43
. In Study 1, our results showed that the collective economic threat positively
predicted both intolerance toward economic inequality F (6, 355) = 16.68; p < .001, β =
.24, p <.001 and collective actions F (6, 355) = 35.15; p < .001, β = .15, p < .001. On the
contrary, the individual economic threat did not predict intolerance towards economic
inequality β = -.03, p = .542, neither collective actions β = .06, p = .185. Further, following
the same plan analysis, we introduced the working class and the 99% identification and
the interdependence self-construal as criterion variables. Results showed that the
collective economic threat positively predicted working class identification F (6, 347) =
12.37; p < .001, β = .29, p <.001, 99% identification F (6, 331) = 2.55; p = .020, β = .13,
p = .021 and interdependence self-construal F (6, 355) = 10.72; p < .001, β = .13, p < .01.
For these reasons, we carried out the parallel mediation analysis to test the role of 99%
identity, working class identity and interdependent self-construal as potential mediations
between collective economic threat and intolerance towards economic inequality and
collective actions. Given these results in Study 1, we focus only on collective threat and
we did not pre-register the individual economic threat in the subsequent studies.
Social identity and self-construal as mediators between collective economic
threat and community collective actions
Then, we carried out parallel mediation analyses with PROCESS (model 4; Hayes,
2013) to test the role of 99% identity (M1), working class identity (M2) and the
interdependent self-construal (M3) as potential mediators of the relationships between
collective economic threat (X) and the community collective action (Y). We used 5,000
bootstrap samples to estimate bias-corrected standard errors and 95% percentile
confidence intervals for the indirect effects. We included the covariates: sex, age, political
orientation and subjective economic status.
44
In Study 2, neither the total effect of collective economic threat on community
collective actions (b = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.36]; p = .237), nor the direct effect (b =
0.06, 95% CI [-0.17 0.29]; p = .613) were significant. The indirect effects via the working
class identity (b = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.01,0.10]), and 99% identity (b = 0.04, 95% CI [-
.01,0.04]) were not significant. Otherwise, the indirect effect via interdependent self-
construal was significant (b = 0.04, 95% CI [0.01,0.10]).
In Study 3, we found that the total effect of collective economic threat on
community collective actions was significant (b = 0.24, 95% CI [0.08, 0.40]; p = .003),
also the direct effect (b = 0.22, 95% CI [0.05, 0.38]; p = .009). Neither the indirect effects
via the 99% identity (b = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.02,0.24]), nor the indirect effect via
interdependent self-construal (b = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.02,0.02]) were significant.
Otherwise, the indirect effect via working class identity was significant (b = 0.03, 95%
CI [0.01,0.08]).
Differences on the perception of emotions and collective efficacy between the
first and second wave of pandemic
In Study 2, we conducted a t-test to explore possible differences on the perception
of emotions (illusion, hope and indignation) as well as on collective efficacy over time.
The results showed significant differences between pandemic waves on illusion, t(244) =
12.764, p < .001, d = 1.07; hope, t(244) = 13.74, p < .001, d = 1.12; and indignation,
t(244) = -7.84, p < .001, d = .43). In such a way that participants perceived in the first
pandemic wave more illusion (M = 5.20; SD = 1.81) and hope (M = 4.93; SD = 1.78) but
lower indignation (M = 5.31; SD = 1.72) that in the second pandemic wave (illusion: M
= 3.28; SD = 1.79; hope: M = 2.97; SD = 1.71; indignation: M = 5.98; SD = 1.36).
However, differences on perceived collective efficacy between the first (M = 5.32; SD =
45
1.30) and the second pandemic waves (M = 5.15; SD = 1.50) were not significant, t(244)
= 1.907, p = .058, d = .121).
The results of Study 3 showed significant differences between pandemic waves
on illusion, t(405) = 17.28, p < .001, d = 1.116; hope, t(405) = 18.68, p < .001, d = 1.17;
indignation, t(404) = -8.52, p < .001, d = 0.38; and collective efficacy t(404) = 5.76, p <
.001, d = 0.30. In such a way that participants perceived in the first pandemic wave more
illusion (M = 5.27; SD = 1.67) and hope (M = 5.00; SD = 1.80) but less indignation (M =
5.36; SD = 1.64) that in the second pandemic wave (illusion: M = 3.44; SD = 1.61; hope:
M = 2.99; SD = 1.64; indignation: M = 5.93; SD = 1.36). Finally, the means of perceived
collective efficacy in the first wave (M = 5.45; SD = 1.25), was higher than in the second
wave (M = 5.04; SD = 1.52), t(404) = 5.761, p < .001, d = 0.295).
46
(2) SOCIAL AND COMMUNITY IMPACT STATEMENT
English language:
47
48
49
Spanish language:
50
51
(3) MEASURAMENT MATERIALS
Main variables items
Individual Economic Threat
Think about the current economic situation caused by the coronavirus (COVID-19), that
is, how the coronavirus influences people when it comes to coping with their own
expenses or their economic/financial position. Please indicate your response to the
following statements
Please indicate how you feel about your current financial situation. Please indicate your
answer on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is "Not at all" and 5 is "Very/Totally"
• How much uncertainty do you feel about your financial situation?
• Do you feel at risk because of your economic situation?
• Do you feel threatened by your economic situation?
52
• How concerned are you about your financial situation?
• How often do you think about your financial situation?
Collective Economic Threat
Now you will have to indicate how you feel about the economic situation in Spain.
Think about your family environment, friends, neighbors and acquaintances. Please
indicate your answer on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is "Not at all" and 5 is "Very/Totally"
• How much uncertainty do you feel about the economic situation in Spain?
• How concerned are you about the economic situation in Spain?
• How often do you think about the economic situation in Spain?
Group identification
Next, we will ask you a series of questions about different social groups (99%, working
class). Before proceeding to complete them, please read carefully the following
information about each of the groups:
• The term 99% vindicates the majority of the world's population (the 99%)
against a very small percentage (1%) that owns half of the planet's wealth (if
wealth were a cake divided in two, the 1% richest gets one half while the other
corresponds to 99% of the world's inhabitants)
• The term working class designates the group of workers who work for a salary
in opposition to the ruling class that owns the majority of the property of
economic resources.
In relation to the above information, indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree
with the following statements. Please indicate your answer on a scale of 1 to 7 to what
53
extent you feel identified with the group in each column, where 1 is "totally disagree"
and 7 is "totally agree"
• I identify with the 99%/working class.
• I feel connected to the 99%/working class.
• I feel in solidarity with the 99%/working class.
• I feel committed to the 99%/working class.
• I often think about the fact that I am part of the 99%/working class.
• It is an important part of my identity to be part of the 99%/working class.
• An important part of how I see myself is being part of the 99%/working class.
Self-Construal Scale
Below are some statements that someone might use to try to describe you. Some of the
statements will probably not describe you well, while others will describe you better.
Please check the corresponding number to indicate how well or poorly the phrase
describes you. For example, if the statement does not describe you at all, then mark 1. If
the statement describes you exactly, then mark 5.
• I prefer to be self-sufficient rather than depend on others
• I try not to depend on other people
• I prefer to turn to other people for help rather than rely solely on myself
• It is important for me to act as an independent person
• I consider that my happiness is independent of the happiness of my friends and
family
• It is important for me to be an accepted member of both my family and my
group of friends.
54
• I usually feel a great sense of pride when someone in my family achieves a
significant achievement.
• When I think of myself, I often think of my close friends and family.
• I am a unique individual
• Being a unique individual is important to me
• I am a unique person, separate from others
• I enjoy being unique and different from others in many ways
• I would sacrifice my own interest for the benefit of my group
• My relationships with others are more important than my personal achievements
• I will stay in my group if they need me, even when I am not happy with the
group
• I stay with my group even despite the difficulties
Intolerance towards Economic Inequality
Being 1 "Totally disagree" and 7 "Totally agree", to what extent would you rate the
following statements?
• The consequences of economic inequality have been greatly exaggerated
• Economic inequality is causing many of the problems in Spain
• I am very concerned about the degree of inequality that exists in Spain
• Economic inequality is not a problem
• We must do everything possible to reduce the economic inequality that exists in
Spain today
Collective Actions
55
Please check below how likely you would be to participate in actions to reduce
economic inequality in the current context. Being 1 "Never" and 7 "very often", to what
extent would you be willing to carry out the following actions?
• I would vote for political parties whose priority is to establish a special tax on
large fortunes to use the proceeds for those who need it most.
• I would promote a campaign to encourage Congress to approve a universal basic
income (financial subsidy) for all residents of Spain.
• I would donate money to associations that organize initiatives aimed at
financially supporting people in situations of greater vulnerability (e.g.,
resistance boxes).
• I would join a party, union or political organization against economic inequality.
• I would participate in union activities or political groups that defend that the
workers affected by dismissal or ERTES receive 100% of their salary.
• I would participate in peaceful demonstrations that demand the expropriation
and nationalization of all private health companies to improve health care for the
entire population.
• I would participate in non-violent civil disobedience actions to demand that
maximum prices be set for basic necessities (e.g., food, hygiene).
• I would distribute political material (flyers, posters, newspapers) that promoted
the distribution of wealth.
• I would boycott products that maintain economic inequality.
• I would sign petitions in favor of economic redistribution.
• Would be active in movements against economic inequality
Exploratory variables items
56
Health Individual Threat
Now, think about the current health situation caused by the coronavirus (COVID-19),
that is, how the coronavirus influences people's health (contagion, disease...). Please
indicate how you feel about your current health. Please indicate your answer on a scale
of 1 to 5, where 1 is "Not at all" and 5 is "Very/Totally"
• How much uncertainty do you feel about your health?
• Do you feel your health is at risk?
• Do you feel threatened by your health?
• How concerned are you about your health?
• How often do you think about your health?
Group identification
Next, we will ask you a series of questions about different social groups (humanity).
Before proceeding to complete them, please read carefully the following information
about each of the groups:
• The term humanity comes from a Latin word related to the nature of the human
race. It serves to mention the group of human beings that inhabit the planet.
Collective Health Threat
Now, you will have to indicate how you feel about the current health situation in Spain.
Think about your family environment, friends, neighbors and acquaintances. Please
indicate your answer on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is "Not at all" and 5 is "Very/Totally"
• How much uncertainty do you feel about the health situation in Spain?
• How concerned are you about the health situation in Spain?
• How often do you think about the health situation in Spain?
57
Social Dominance Orientation
Being 1 "Totally disagree" and 7 "Totally agree", to what extent would you rate the
following statements?
• Some groups of people are worth more than others
• We should do everything possible to level the playing field for the different
groups
• Sometimes it is necessary to use force against other groups to get what your
group wants.
• If certain groups of people held their ground, we would have fewer
problems.
• We would have fewer problems if we treated different groups equally.
• To get ahead in life, it is sometimes necessary to step over other groups of
people.
• No one group of people should dominate in society.
• Equality between groups of people should be our ideal.
• All groups of people should have equal opportunities in life.
• Social equality must be increased.
• The higher groups of people should dominate the lower groups.
• It is probably a good thing that certain groups are in a higher position and
others in a lower position.
• We must fight to achieve more equal income for all.
• Sometimes some groups of people must stay in their position.
• It would be desirable for all groups to be equal.
• The lower groups should stay in their position
58
Economic System Justification
Next, a series of statements about our society will appear. Please mark the number that
you think is most convenient to indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with
each of the following statements. Being 1 "Totally disagree" and 5 "Totally agree", to
what extent would you rate the following statements?
• If people work hard, they almost always get what they want.
• Most of the people who do not progress in our society should not blame the
system: they are the only ones to blame.
• The gap between social classes reflects differences in the natural order of things.
• The economic position of people is a product of their achievements.
• If someone tries hard enough, they can move up the social ladder.
• There are many people who are poor because they don't like to work.
• It is good to have an economic system that rewards those who make an effort.
Community Collective Actions
• I would participate in neighborhood groups that have been formed to help the
elderly or the population at risk with purchases.
• I would participate in initiatives aimed at collecting funds (solidarity piggy
banks or resistance boxes) to financially support the vulnerable population
(people affected by ERTE, in an irregular situation, with minors or dependents
in their care, etc.).
• I would participate in solidarity actions (such as clothing collection, food bank,
etc.) aimed at providing resources for people with economic difficulties.
Collective Efficacy
59
Next, we are going to ask you to remember and try to think about the thoughts you had
during the first wave of the pandemic (in confinement: between the months of March
and May) and compare them with what you think today, during the second wave of the
pandemic. Show your level of agreement or disagreement with each of the following
statements, from 1, which is totally disagree, to 7, which is totally agree.
Before:
• Together, citizens, we are stronger
• We citizens can achieve things collectively that cannot be achieved individually
• No one should think that you cannot count on us, the citizens
After:
• Together, citizens, we are stronger
• We citizens can achieve things collectively that cannot be achieved individually
• No one should think that you cannot count on us, the citizens
Emotions
Next, we ask you to remember and try to think about how you felt during the first wave
of the pandemic (in lockdown: between the months of March and May) and compare it
with how you feel today, during the second wave. of the pandemic. Show your level of
agreement or disagreement with each of the following statements, from 1, which is
totally disagree, to 7, which is totally agree.
Before:
• Illusion, that things could change
• Hope, that as a society we would consider a change of course
60
• Indignation, before the impact of the pandemic because the pandemic
exacerbates economic inequality
After:
• Illusion, that things could change
• Hope, that as a society we would consider a change of course
• Indignation, before the impact of the pandemic because the pandemic
exacerbates economic inequality
