The climate activist’s dilemma: Extreme protests reduce movement support but raise climate concern and intentions

Abstract

Some members of the climate movement advocate for disruptive tactics, including mass civil disobedience, in the effort to pressure governments to address anthropogenic climate change. However, prior research on the “activist's dilemma” suggests that extreme protest actions may reduce public support for a movement. The present research aimed to discover if these findings would replicate within the highly moralised context of climate change, and explore target deservingness as a potential moderator. Across two studies, with Australian psychology students (Study 1; N = 178) and a politically representative sample from the United Kingdom (Study 2; N = 511), participants perceived climate activists engaging in extreme (vs. moderate) protests to be more immoral, felt less emotional connection and identification with them, and supported the movement less. However, Study 2 found that extreme (vs. moderate) protests also heightened climate concern and intentions to take climate-related actions. These findings highlight a “climate activist's dilemma”: while extreme tactics may reduce support for the activist groups who engage in such tactics, they may simultaneously raise climate concern and personal intentions to act.