This paper critically examines the normative versus non-normative distinction commonly used in collective action research. To explore the similarities and differences between antecedents of normative versus non-normative actions, we conducted a systematic review on diverse predictors of non-normative, radical and violent collective actions. We examined 37 social and political psychology studies published after 2010 and identified five recurring themes: identity, efficacy, injustice, emotions and norms. Findings exhibited significant overlaps with those predictors associated with normative collective action. Thus, a reconceptualization is needed to undermine the rigid boundaries between these action types, highlighting the intricate interplay of factors that transcend the conventional binary. Aiming to avoid conceptual ambiguity and challenge the perspective that associating particular collective actions with unwarranted violence using social norms as fixed and a priori, we propose the term 'confrontational collective action' to separate out form of action from societal approval. Through this reconceptualization, we discussed the main limitations in the literature, focusing on how studies approach normativity and efficacy and addressing the issue of decontextualization in the literature. This paper calls for a contextually informed understanding of confrontational collective action that recognizes what is seen as 'normative' can change over time through intra- and intergroup interactions.
Keywords: confrontational collective action; efficacy; identity; non-normative; norm; radical.
© 2024 The Authors. British Journal of Social Psychology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Psychological Society.