In recent years, the tactics employed by activists to capture public attention and galvanize action have increasingly come under scrutiny. A recent study, published in the npj Climate Action journal, seeks to understand public perception of nonviolent civil disobedience within the climate activism arena. The study finds that the effectiveness of nonviolent civil disobedience in rallying support for climate action may significantly depend on how appropriate these tactics and their targets are perceived by the general public.
At the heart of this investigation lies a critical question: do certain forms of protest, particularly those aimed at raising awareness about the need to end fossil fuel consumption, actually foster broader support for the fight against climate change?
“Our interest in this topic began initially when we saw videos of Just Stop Oil protesters throwing soup on van Gogh’s ‘Sunflowers.’ As scholars and supporters of strong climate action, we were wondering what kinds of effects these types of protests may have on people who are more on the fence or unsure about whether to support a climate movement,” said study author Nic Badullovich, a research-to-practice postdoctoral fellow at George Mason University’s Center for Climate Change Communication.
Badullovich and his colleagues conducted two studies to examine this.
In the first study, the team set out to investigate whether there were differences in perceptions of appropriateness for different protest actions and their targets. To do this, they surveyed 400 Americans, eventually narrowing down to a sample of 380 participants after excluding those who did not finish the survey, did not consent to participate, or failed attention checks The demographics of the participants were quota matched to reflect the U.S. census parameters in terms of age and sex, with a partial match for race.
Participants were presented with a randomized list of 16 protest tactics and 16 targets, all of which were based on actual events, enhancing the study’s relevance to real-world scenarios. They were then asked to rate each tactic and target on a 7-point scale, ranging from highly inappropriate to highly appropriate.
Nonviolent, direct actions aimed at raising awareness and pressuring change were rated as most appropriate tactics. Boycotts, public marches/rallies, and sit-ins were among the top, with high appropriateness scores, indicating broad public support for these traditional forms of protest.
In contrast, actions involving physical aggression or property damage were viewed negatively. Physical assault, soup throwing at artworks, and breaking into buildings were deemed highly inappropriate, with mean scores at the lower end of the scale. This reflects a general disapproval of violence or destruction as methods of protest
Targets directly linked to the perpetuation of fossil fuel consumption and climate change were viewed most favorably. Specifically, fossil fuel companies, CEOs of these companies, and federal government officials advocating for fossil fuel usage emerged as the most acceptable targets for protest actions. This suggests a general public consensus that those who directly contribute to the climate crisis are legitimate focuses for protest actions.
The researchers observed a stark disapproval of targeting entities or individuals perceived as less directly responsible for exacerbating climate change. Museums that do not accept fossil fuel funding, ordinary people, and commuters driving to work were deemed the least appropriate targets, receiving low appropriateness scores.
Building on the insights garnered from Study 1, the second study aimed to test whether exposure to protest actions and targets deemed appropriate would enhance support for the climate movement. This was conducted with a sample of 391 participants, selected using the same demographic matching strategy as in Study 1.
Participants were shown one of three potential messages, each corresponding to a different level of perceived appropriateness of protest actions and targets. Before and after reading the assigned message, they answered a series of questions designed to measure their support for the climate movement. This support was quantified into an index comprising support for the movement, feelings towards activists, and willingness to participate in the movement.
Despite observing trends suggesting that perceptions of the appropriateness of protest actions could influence support for the climate movement, the researchers did not find statistically significant differences in support levels among the various experimental groups. Essentially, while there were indications that the appropriateness of protest actions might matter, these indications were not strong enough to conclude definitively that there was a real effect across the conditions tested.
The researchers pointed out that the absence of significant differences in their findings did not come as a surprise, considering that their study, being a preliminary investigation typical of pilot studies, had a smaller sample size that likely lacked sufficient power to detect notable differences.
“I think a main takeaway should be that there’s a spectrum of protest tactics, as well as targets of those protests – some are seen as more appropriate, others, less so,” Badullovich told PsyPost. “That means there’s an important strategic element to achieving effective protest, as past research has also suggested. But it’s important to note our two studies were small and one was pilot, hence, it shouldn’t be seen as the final word on any of these conversations. Instead, it was a first step and we’re hoping to keep building on this with further research.”
The researchers “need a fully powered sample to be able to draw firmer conclusions,” he noted. “We are now designing a larger study which will aim to investigate these ideas further. We’re hoping to field it in the near future.”
The study, “How does public perception of climate protest influence support for climate action?“, was authored by N. Badullovich, D. Tucker, R. Amoako, P. Ansah, B. Davis, U. Horoszko, L. Zakiyyah, and E. Maibach.
