In an increasingly interconnected digital world, the dynamics of collective online behavior have become a central focus for psychologists and social scientists. How do individuals’ perceptions of their group’s relative deprivation—feeling that their group is unfairly disadvantaged—translate into intentions to participate in collective action online? A groundbreaking study published in BMC Psychology by Xiong, Fan, Nyambe, and colleagues (2026) probes deeply into this complex psychological phenomenon, unraveling the nuanced pathways through which group-relative deprivation mobilizes online collective behavior. Bringing to light previously unexplored mediating mechanisms involving group efficacy and group-based anger, their research provides vital insight into how and why digital mobilization occurs.
At the heart of this inquiry lies the concept of group-relative deprivation, a psychological state where individuals perceive their social group as suffering injustice or inequality relative to other groups. This perceived deprivation is not simply individual discontent but rather a collectively held sentiment that can galvanize group members toward action. Within the virtual realm, where groups form easily and communication spreads rapidly, understanding the emotional and cognitive precursors to collective action has never been more urgent. The research team carefully operationalizes group-relative deprivation to parse out its influence on people’s intentions to engage in online collective behavior, such as digital protests, hashtag activism, or coordinated boycotts.
A key contribution of this study is the identification of a chain mediation process that illuminates the psychological mechanics behind online collective behavior decisions. Specifically, the authors highlight two pivotal intermediaries: group efficacy and group-based anger. Group efficacy refers to the shared belief in a group’s capability to effect change through collective efforts. This dimension introduces a critical cognitive appraisal—do members believe their collective efforts will matter? Without this belief, even strong perceptions of deprivation may fail to convert into action. The study demonstrates that high group efficacy magnifies the impact of deprivation on behavioral intentions, functioning as a psychological catalyst.
Equally important is the role of group-based anger, an affective response generated by meaningfully appraising inequity inflicted upon the group. Unlike generalized anger, group-based anger targets perceived perpetrators and injustices that affect the collective self-identity. The research elucidates that this emotion acts as both a motivational driver and a moral enhancer, pushing group members not only to recognize unfairness but to feel morally compelled toward resistance. When group-based anger combines with a robust sense of efficacy, the intention to engage in concerted online activities surges dramatically.
The integration of affective and cognitive mediators within a sequential model rests on the innovative use of chain mediation analysis. This methodological sophistication allows the researchers to trace the direct and indirect pathways linking relative deprivation to online collective behavior intentions, distinguishing the causal ordering of psychological variables. This approach enhances the reliability of the findings and challenges prior simplistic models that considered mediators separately or neglected their interplay. By adopting this comprehensive analytical framework, the study advances the science of collective action into a more holistic understanding of motivated online behavior.
This multidimensional perspective comes at a time when digital mobilization is increasingly shaping political and social landscapes. The democratizing power of digital platforms allows disadvantaged groups to amplify their voices at unprecedented scales. However, the question of what galvanizes groups to transition from passive observers to active participants in online collectives remains complex. This research deciphers the psychological antecedents that transform latent grievances into proactive digital engagement, offering a blueprint for activists, policymakers, and social movement scholars alike.
Importantly, the study discusses the theoretical implications for social identity and collective action theories. Group-relative deprivation resonates with classic notions from social psychology, but by emphasizing group efficacy and group-based anger, the authors deepen the theoretical apparatus explaining how social identities translate into mobilization. They argue that effective collective action hinges on a delicate balance of emotion-driven motivation and confidence in group power, reflecting a dual-process motivational structure in online contexts. This insight challenges deterministic or purely affect-based explanations, advocating for integrative models that account for cognitive appraisals.
Beyond theoretical contributions, the practical ramifications resonate strongly in contemporary society. Understanding the psychological mechanisms triggering online collective behavior is critical for managing social cohesion, mitigating digital polarization, and promoting constructive civic engagement. For example, online activists can leverage these findings to enhance campaigns by fostering group efficacy narratives and framing messages that evoke righteous group-based anger. Conversely, addressing destructive collective online behaviors may require strategies to diffuse or redirect these emotional and efficacy perceptions to prevent escalation.
Methodologically, the research employed a robust mixed-method approach, combining quantitative surveys with experimental manipulations to validate the mediating pathways. Participants from diverse social groups were measured on their perceptions of group deprivation, efficacy beliefs, and group-based anger, alongside their reported intentions for online collective participation. The use of chain mediation analyses alongside confirmatory factor modeling ensured the reliability and validity of the constructs. This comprehensive design strengthens confidence that the observed relationships reflect genuine psychological dynamics rather than spurious correlations.
The findings also suggest broader implications for understanding the politicization of online spaces. As digital environments become sites of contention and mobilization, elucidating why certain groups seize opportunities for collective action while others do not is pivotal. This study affirms that perceptions of injustice alone are insufficient mobilizers—without accompanying efficacy and emotional investment, collective intentions falter. Moreover, group-based anger appears instrumental in catalyzing swift online responses, indicating that emotional framing by social media influencers and movement leaders can tip the scales.
Looking ahead, the authors call for future research to probe how these dynamics operate across cultural contexts and different types of online collective behavior. The generalizability of the mediating mechanisms could vary depending on societal norms, political regimes, and digital platform affordances. Additionally, longitudinal studies could examine how group efficacy and group-based anger fluctuate over time as mobilizations develop or dissolve. Integrating neuropsychological insights into emotional arousal during digital activism also presents a fertile avenue for exploration.
In conclusion, Xiong, Fan, Nyambe, and colleagues have delivered a pivotal contribution to the psychology of online collective action by articulating a sophisticated chain mediation model connecting group-relative deprivation, group efficacy, and group-based anger. Their research not only enhances theoretical understanding of social identity and motivation but also delivers actionable insights into the mechanisms spurring digital activism. As the global community confronts increasingly complex social challenges mediated through online spaces, decoding the psychological engines propelling collective action is indispensable for fostering participatory democracy, social justice, and community resilience. This landmark study offers a beacon illuminating the pathways from shared grievances to transformative collective online behavior.
Subject of Research: Online collective behavior, group-relative deprivation, group efficacy, group-based anger, social psychology
Article Title: How does group-relative deprivation affect the intentions of online collective behavior? Evidence from the chain mediating dynamics of group efficacy and group-based anger
Article References:
Xiong, M., Fan, P., Nyambe, HK. et al. How does group-relative deprivation affect the intentions of online collective behavior? Evidence from the chain mediating dynamics of group efficacy and group-based anger. BMC Psychol (2026). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-026-04006-6
Image Credits: AI Generated
