Intrinsic in any substantial social change is the destruction of the current social status. Although radical groups may trigger positive emotions because people think they have positive qualities and seek positive goals, they may also trigger negative emotions because they disrupt the current social system.
When pursuing a positive goal, a new group causes more ambivalence than an established group. Consistent with theories that emphasize the maintenance of the status quo, these findings show that attitudes toward radical organizations are not solely based on self-interest.
The core issue in the pursuit of social justice is how to achieve social change in the best way. Any attempt to achieve social change will encounter various challenges: cognitive, attitudinal, and behavioral resistance will reduce the possibility of social change. Even so, it is generally believed that if the goal of a radical organization is affirmed, the public will support it. Many political campaigns clearly emphasized the change of the current social system, such as the “building a bridge to the 21st century” proposed by Clinton in 1996 or the “resultant reformer” proposed by Bush in 2000.
Current research questions whether such an emphasis on change will trigger complex reactions even when pursuing positive goals. In particular, we studied whether even groups pursuing positive goals can trigger ambivalence. The activism of a group involves, to some extent, the destruction of the current state of affairs. This kind of interference itself may trigger some negative emotions, leading to conflicting responses even to groups pursuing positive goals.
The prediction that the destruction of the social system itself will trigger negative emotions comes from theories that focus on the motivation to maintain the status quo. Previous research has proved that there is a strong status quo bias in the decision-making process: in a series of decisions, people prefer the current state of affairs. The ideology rooted in the motivation to maintain the status quo has recently been used to explain people’s attitudes towards a range of social groups and policies. Assume that the individual has a strong motivation to rationalize the current state of society, even if the status quo is not directly beneficial to the individual.
Reference：
“Social Change .” International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. . Retrieved October 26, 2021 from Encyclopedia.com: https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences/applied-and-social-sciences-magazines/social-change-0
The saying that “the only thing constant is change” emphasizes points made in your post. People tend to not like change but love the idea for something new and different. Most of this contradictory process is often to do with not knowing the outcomes of change while having an understanding of the way things are currently. Yet the only way to improve is to take risks in developing different ways for society to operate. This risk is important to assess as there is the potential for negative emotions to arise and ruin any progress being made.
Reference：
“Social Change .” International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. . Retrieved October 26, 2021 from Encyclopedia.com: https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences/applied-and-social-sciences-magazines/social-change-0