Social axiom and group identity explain participation in a societal event in Hong Kong

The study investigates why and how individuals participate in social movements, focusing on cognitive (worldviews/social axioms) and affective (group-related emotions) mechanisms within a social psychological framework. Against a backdrop of increasing global civil unrest and the 2014 Hong Kong Umbrella Movement, the authors propose integrating a “hot” system (social identity and group-related emotions) and a “cold” system (generalized beliefs about the world—social axioms) to predict collective action. They specifically examine whether (a) belief in reward for application fosters perceived group efficacy that promotes participation; (b) salience of a Hong Kong identity elicits group-related emotions that promote participation; (c) only movement-relevant identities (Hong Konger/activist) predict participation over other identities (friend, family, Chinese); and (d) group-related emotions and group efficacy account for temporal changes in participation over two weeks during the protests. Four hypotheses (H1–H4) formalize these predictions.

The authors ground their model in social identity theory and the integrative social identity model of collective action (SIMCA), which identify social identity, perceived injustice, and perceived efficacy as key drivers of collective action. Intergroup emotion theory posits that salient group identities generate group-based emotions that shape attitudes and behaviors, including protest involvement. They extend this work by incorporating social axioms—generalized beliefs about how the world functions. Prior cross-cultural research has validated five individual-level social axiom factors (social cynicism, fate control, social complexity, reward for application, religiosity) and linked them to diverse outcomes (e.g., coping, adjustment, political attitudes, well-being, gambling). Reward for application, the belief that effort leads to favorable outcomes, has been associated with active coping and adjustment and is theorized here to enhance perceptions of group efficacy, thereby increasing collective action. The study addresses a gap by testing the role of social axioms in real-time participation in a social movement.

Design: A 14-day diary study during the 2014 Hong Kong Occupy/Umbrella Movement collected daily reports (Level 1) nested within individuals (Level 2). Data collection ran October 1–14, 2014; entries were allowed 8:00 p.m.–3:30 a.m. to capture same-day experiences. Participants: 234 recruited university students; final sample N=225 (152 females; mean age=19.88, SD=2.01). On average, participants completed 11.07 of 14 days, yielding 2,489 diary reports. Measures (daily unless noted):

• Social movement participation: Eight yes/no behaviors (e.g., wearing suggested clothing/accessories, class boycott, on-/off-campus rallies, financial/material support, discussion/publicizing via social media, planning/working as staff). Daily sum score; higher scores indicate more participation.
• Reward for application (social axiom): Single item, “Endurance and determination are key to achieving goals,” 1=strongly disbelieve to 5=strongly believe.
• Group efficacy: Three items (e.g., likelihood the movement can achieve goals), 1–10; higher scores indicate greater perceived efficacy (α=0.65).
• Identity salience: Salience of identities (Hong Konger, friend, family/child of parents, Chinese), 1–7.
• Group-related emotions: 15 items (8 positive: excited, relaxed, interested, happy, proud, strong, inspired, enthusiastic; 7 negative: ashamed, frustrated, anxious, worried, confused, sad, irritable), rated as felt “as a Hong Konger,” 1–7; daily means computed (α=0.91 positive; 0.92 negative).
• Personal emotions: Same 15 items rated as personal emotions that day, 1–7; daily means (α=0.92 positive; 0.93 negative).
• Political orientation: Single item, 1=very liberal to 7=very conservative (baseline covariate).
• Subjective vitality: Five items (e.g., “I feel energized today”), 1–7; α=0.97. Procedure and analysis: Multilevel structural equation modeling (MSEM) with random intercepts and fixed slopes decomposed variables into within- and between-person components (group-mean centering at Level 1). Age, gender, and political orientation were controlled. Indirect effects were tested via asymptotic delta method. Repeated-measures ANOVAs on completers (n=103) assessed temporal trends. For subgroup analyses, participants were categorized as protesters (n=115; ever attended off-campus rallies or worked as staff on any day) versus non-protesters (n=110). For between-group models, the dependent variable (collective action) excluded the two selection items. Model fit indices (e.g., χ², CFI, SRMR, RMSEA) were reported. Intraclass correlations ranged 0.59–0.77 (about 65% variance between individuals).

Model fit was acceptable (overall model: χ²(3)=55.94, p<0.001; CFI=0.92; SRMR=0.04; RMSEA=0.08). H1 (cognitive pathway): Reward for application → group efficacy → participation. Reward for application positively predicted group efficacy (β=0.11, p=0.01, 95% CI [0.03, 0.19]); group efficacy positively predicted participation (β=0.20, p<0.001, 95% CI [0.13, 0.28]). Indirect effect (mediation) from reward for application to participation via group efficacy was significant (indirect=0.022, p=0.006, 95% CI [0.006, 0.037]); direct effect was non-significant (β=0.02, p=0.491), indicating full mediation. H2 (affective pathway): Hong Kong identity → group-related emotions → participation. Identity salience predicted positive (β=0.15, p<0.001, 95% CI [0.09, 0.21]) and negative (β=0.11, p<0.001, 95% CI [0.06, 0.15]) group-related emotions. Both predicted participation positively (positive emotions: β=0.18, p<0.001, 95% CI [0.11, 0.25]; negative emotions: β=0.13, p=0.013, 95% CI [0.03, 0.23]). Indirect effects via positive (0.027, p<0.001, 95% CI [0.013, 0.040]) and negative (0.014, p=0.023, 95% CI [0.002, 0.025]) emotions were significant. A residual direct effect of identity on participation remained (β=0.13, p<0.001). Ancillary: Only Hong Kong identity predicted participation (β=0.23, p<0.001), not friend (β=-0.03, p=0.201), child/family (β=0.02, p=0.529), or Chinese identity (β=0.00, p=0.942), supporting H3. Group-related emotions (positive: β=0.22, p<0.001; negative: β=0.17, p<0.001) predicted participation; personal emotions did not (positive: β=0.02, p=0.466; negative: β=-0.00, p=0.945). Temporal dynamics (H4): Among completers (n=103), participation declined over time (F(13,1326)=50.85, p<0.001), as did group efficacy (F=8.50, p<0.001) and both positive (F=22.09, p<0.001) and negative (F=30.36, p<0.001) group-related emotions. In multilevel mediation (N=225), days predicted decreases in participation, efficacy, and emotions (β range -0.27 to -0.46, ps<0.001). Group efficacy (β=0.16, p<0.001) and positive group-related emotions (β=0.08, p=0.001) predicted participation; negative emotions did not (β=-0.04, p=0.101). Declines in participation were mediated by declines in group efficacy (indirect=-0.04, p<0.001, 95% CI [-0.07, -0.02]) and positive group-related emotions (indirect=-0.03, p=0.003), but not by negative emotions (indirect=0.01, p=0.106). Subjective vitality and political orientation fluctuated without linear decline and did not account for temporal patterns; mediation remained after including them. Protesters vs non-protesters: Multiple-group MSEM fit well (χ²(6)=45.18, p<0.001; CFI=0.97; SRMR=0.03; RMSEA=0.07). Time effects on efficacy and positive emotions were similar across groups. Group efficacy predicted collective action in both groups (effect sizes equivalent). Positive group-related emotions predicted collective action among protesters (β=0.12, p<0.001; mediated time effect: indirect=-0.03, p=0.001), but not among non-protesters (β=0.01, p=0.878), indicating greater influence of the affective (“hot”) pathway for protesters.

Findings support a dual-pathway model of collective action in a real-world protest: a cognitive pathway whereby the worldview that effort yields results (reward for application) enhances perceived group efficacy, which in turn promotes participation, and an affective pathway whereby salient movement-relevant identity (Hong Konger) elicits group-related emotions that drive participation. Both mechanisms help explain the observed decline in participation over time, primarily via decreases in perceived group efficacy and positive group-related emotions. Emotions experienced as a group member—not personal emotions—were predictive, underscoring the group-based nature of political action. The results extend SIMCA by adding worldviews (social axioms) as distal cognitive antecedents and identify positive group-based emotions as important for sustaining action over time. Differences between protesters and non-protesters indicate that while efficacy motivates both, protesters’ behavior is more strongly tied to positive group-related affect, highlighting the role of emotional engagement in active participation. Collectively, the study elucidates how social identity salience and generalized beliefs shape dynamic participation in societal events.

This study contributes a dual-process account of collective action that integrates social identity and social axioms in predicting real-time participation in a major political movement. It demonstrates that (1) reward for application influences participation fully via group efficacy; (2) Hong Kong identity salience influences participation partially via group-related emotions; (3) only movement-relevant identity predicts engagement; and (4) declines in efficacy and positive group-related emotions account for decreasing participation over time. The work highlights the added value of worldviews in models of collective action and emphasizes positive group emotions in sustaining engagement. Future research should broaden the framework to include other social axiom factors (e.g., social cynicism, fate control), perceived injustice, social support, socio-structural appraisals (illegitimacy, instability), prior activism and organizational membership, and cost–benefit analyses at personal and group levels, as well as test generalizability across movements and contexts.

The study’s context—the 2014 Hong Kong Umbrella Movement—limits generalizability to other political settings. Time constraints and diary-length considerations led to single-item measures for some constructs and omission of potentially important predictors (e.g., past movement participation, formal organizational membership, ideology, perceived injustice, social support, and broader socio-structural variables). Internal consistencies for some scales (e.g., group efficacy α=0.65) were modest. Although multilevel mediation was modeled, causal inference remains limited in observational diary data. Sample comprises university students, which may not represent the broader population.