Legitimizing Collective Action and Countervailing Power

Contemporary social movement researchers claim that legitimizing elements of social movements can counteract collective action problems and increase the likelihood that self-interested individuals take collective rather than individual action. Their work is insightful and informative, but it rarely uses general theory to describe the processes through which movement elements acquire legitimacy. Nor does it apply general theory to describe the mechanisms or processes through which legitimized elements influence collective action. The laboratory experiments reported in this article test hypotheses derived from a general theory—the multiple-sources, multiple-objects theory of legitimacy. The experiments examine the effects that legitimacy (measured as peer endorsement) and network size have on coalition formation, a form of collective action, and the countervailing of power. The research finds support for the legitimacy arguments. Low-power actors form coalitions more often in networks that highly endorse coalition formation and in smaller networks. Coalitions countervail power, and coalitions in the smallest networks reverse power.