ArticleThe British journal of social psychology2025
Believing that social change is possible: Collective efficacy to promote engagement and mobilization of non-Roma as allies.
Article in The British journal of social psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The relationship between Black Americans' exposure to vicarious racism and collective action.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Article
- Believing that social change is possible: Collective efficacy to promote engagement and mobilization of non-Roma as allies.The British journal of social psychology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We analyzed the effect of collective efficacy on mobilizing allies for Roma rights and the role of legitimizing ideologies and perceived discrimination as moderators. In an online experiment, pooling two samples of non-Roma Hungarians (n = 397) and Spaniards (n = 339), participants were randomly assigned to a high (vs. low) efficacy condition and reported their perceived collective efficacy, collective action intentions, and participation for supporting Roma. Pooled analyses showed that participants were more willing to take action in the high (vs. low) efficacy condition, although meritocracy beliefs moderated the effects. In a second study in Slovakia (n = 454), with a control condition, we found indirect effects of the manipulation of collective efficacy, supporting the idea that decreasing perceived collective efficacy predicts lower collective action intentions and participation. In a third study in Hungary (n = 382), we disentangled collective efficacy from social norms and found indirect effects via perceived collective efficacy. Participants in the low efficacy condition (vs. high efficacy or control) perceived less collective efficacy as allies, which in turn was associated with lower collective action. We discuss the conceptualization of collective efficacy in experimental studies and its implications for the mobilization of equality.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.