Why (Not) Engage: Perceived Limits of Civic Agency and Barriers to Participation in Armenia

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.46991/BYSU.E/2026.17.2.120

Keywords:

civic participation, (dis)engagement, perceived limits/barriers, agency, collective efficacy

Abstract

The aim of the article is to discuss, from a socio-psychological perspective, the perceived limits of influencing developments in the country and the barriers to civic engagement among youth in post-revolutionary and post-war Armenia. Both theory and social practice suggest that perceived opportunities of participating in social change and influencing social reality have practical implications for actual (non)participation, which, in turn, feeds back to the construction of that reality. Given the civic participation decline within the complex conditions of post-war uncertainty, the study of perceived engagement barriers and limits is key to identifying and fostering meaningful forms of collective agency and civic participation. The analysis is based on focus group interviews conducted in Yerevan and four regions of Armenia in 2024. The findings reveal structural (supra-individual), group(community)-level, and individual-level factors through which participants interpret their own (non)engagement.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

  • Sona Manusyan

    Candidate of Psychological Sciences, Head of the Psychological Studies of Societal Processes Research Group, YSU

  • Ani Poghosyan, Yerevan State University

    Lecturer at the Chair of Personality Psychology, Junior Researcher at the Personality and Social Context Research Laboratory, YSU

  • Ani Gasparyan

    Junior Researcher at the Personality and Social Context Research Laboratory, YSU,

  • Narine Khachatryan

    Candidate of Psychological Sciences, Associate Professor, Head of the Chair of Personality Psychology, Head of the Personality and Social Context Research Laboratory, YSU,  

References

Էմիրբայեր, Մ., Միշե, Ա. (2024). Ի՞նչ է գործականությունը։ Ս. Մանուսյան (Կազմ. և խմբ.), Անհատը և հանրայինը․ տեքստեր փոխհարաբերության մասին: Սոցիոսկոպ ՀԿ։ էջ 181–229:

Մանուսյան, Ա., Խալաթյան, Մ., Մարտիրոսյան, Ս. (2025, օգոստոսի 13). Ի՞նչ անել, երբ հին ակտիվիզմը չի աշխատում․ ռադիկալացնել ժողովրդավարությունը: ­Սոցիոսկոպ ՀԿ։ https://socioscope.am/archives/4591 (դիտվել է՝ 22.05.2026)

CRRC Հայաստան. (2024). Բարոմետր 2024. Հասարակական կարծիքի ուսումնասիրություն. Երևան: https://caucasusbarometer.org/am/cb2024am (հասանելի է 22.05.2026)

IRI (2026). Հանրային կարծիքի ուսումնասիրություն. Հայաստանի առկա բնակչություն. Երևան:https://www.iri.org/resources/public-opinion-survey-residents-of-armenia-february-2026/ (դիտվել է 22.05.2026)

Archer, M. S. (2013). The Ontological Status of Subjectivity: The Missing Link Between Structure and Agency, in Contributions to social ontology, pp. 17–31. Abingdon: Routledge. DOI:10.4324/9780203083107-4

Baiocchi, G., Bennett, E. A., Cordner, A., Klein, P., & Savell, S. (2015). Civic imagination: Making a difference in American political life. Routledge.

Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(3), pp. 75–78. DOI:10.1111/1467-8721.00064

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), pp. 77–101. DOI:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Davis, D.W. and Silver, B.D. (2004). Civil Liberties vs. Security: Public Opinion in the Context of the Terrorist Attacks on America. American Journal of Political Science, 48, pp. 28-46. DOI:10.1111/j.0092-5853.2004.00054.x

Fritsche, I., Jonas, & E. & Kessler, T. (2011), Collective Reactions to Threat: Implications for Intergroup Conflict and for Solving Societal Crises. Social Issues and Policy Review, 5, pp. 101-136. DOI:10.1111/j.1751-2409.2011.01027.x

Fritsche, I., Jonas, E., & Kessler, T. (2011). Collective reactions to threat: Implications for intergroup conflict and for solving societal crises. Social issues and policy review, 5(1), pp. 101-136.

Hayes, A. F., Glynn, C. J., & Shanahan, J. (2005). Willingness to Self-Censor: A Construct and Measurement Tool for Public Opinion Research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17(3), pp. 298-323. DOI:10.1093/ijpor/edh073

Henig, D. & Knight, D.M. (2023), Polycrisis: Prompts for an emerging worldview. Anthropology Today, 39: pp. 3-6. DOI:10.1111/1467-8322.12793

Hogg, M. A. (2007). Uncertainty–Identity Theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 39, pp. 69–126. DOI:10.1016/S0065-2601(06)39002-8

Huddy, L., Feldman, S., & Weber, C. (2007). The political consequences of perceived threat and felt insecurity. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 614(1), pp. 131-153.

Huysmans, J. (2014). Security unbound: Enacting democratic limits. Routledge.

Jäger, F. (2023). Security vs. Civil Liberties: How Citizens Cope with Threat, Restriction, and Ideology. Frontiers in Political Science, 4. DOI:10.3389/fpos.2022.1006711

Kende, A., Lukács, D., Rényi, D., & Lantos, N. A. (2023). Reactions to perceived threats and opportunities in a polarized society: Collective action among progressive movements in Poland. Current Psychology. DOI:10.1007/s12144-023-04926-1

Levitsky, S., & Ziblatt, D. (2018). How Democracies Die. Crown.

Manusyan, S., Grigoryan, A., Ayanian, A. H., Khachatryan, N., Poghosyan, A., Grigoryan, T., … Paremuzyan, N. (2025, June 23). Civic (In)Action, Agency and Identity amid Uncertainty: A Social-Psychological Lens on Post-revolutionary and (Post-)War Armenia DOI:10.17605/OSF.IO/AWP8H

Norris, P. (2011). Democratic Deficit: Critical Citizens Revisited. Cambridge University Press.

Polletta, F. (2006). It was like a fever: Storytelling in Protest and Politics. University of Chicago Press.

Santora, M. (2025, July 22). Wartime Protests in Ukraine Target Zelensky for the First Time. The New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/22/world/europe/zelensky-protests-corruption.html (դիտվել է 22.05.2026)

Schwartz, S. H. (2012). An Overview of the Schwartz Theory of Basic Values. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1). DOI:10.9707/2307-0919.1116

Shultziner, D. (2025), Identity, Collective Action and Inaction: The Role of Self-Esteem and Psychological Benefits. J Theory Soc Behav, 55: e12440. DOI:10.1111/jtsb.12440

Stepanenko, V. (2022). Ukrainian Society Under War: An Insider’s Sociological Notes. Przegląd socjologiczny, 71(3), pp: 11-26. DOI:10.26485/PS/2022/71.3/1

Tilly, C., & Tarrow, S. (2015). Contentious Politics (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

Van Bezouw, M. J., Závecz, G., Penna, C., Rijken, A. J., Klandermans, P. G., & Uluğ, Ö. M. (2019). Social Psychological Explanations of Political Inaction: Citizens’ Perspectives in Brazil, Hungary, and the Netherlands. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 19(1), pp. 381-406. DOI:10.1111/asap.12189

van Zomeren, M., Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2008). Toward an integrative social identity model of collective action. A quantitative research synthesis of three socio-psychological perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 134(4), pp. 504–535. DOI:10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.504

Zhang, S. (2013). Intergroup threat and collective action intention: Dual-pathway model of mass incidents. Acta Psychologica Sinica. DOI:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2013.01410

Downloads

Published

2026-06-22

Issue

Vol. 17 No. 2(50) (2026)

Section

PSYCHOLOGY

License

Copyright (c) 2026 Sona Manusyan, Ani Poghosyan, Ani Gasparyan, Narine Khachatryan

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

Manusyan, S., Poghosyan, A., Gasparyan, A., & Khachatryan, N. (2026). Why (Not) Engage: Perceived Limits of Civic Agency and Barriers to Participation in Armenia. Bulletin of Yerevan University E: Philosophy, Psychology, 17(2(50), 120-135. https://doi.org/10.46991/BYSU.E/2026.17.2.120

Most read articles by the same author(s)