Radical flanks of social movements can increase support for moderate factions

Abstract

Social movements are critical agents of social change, but are rarely monolithic. Instead, movements are often made up of distinct factions with unique agendas and tactics, and there is little scientific consensus on when these factions may complement – or impede – one another's influence. One central debate concerns whether radical flanks within a movement increase support for more moderate factions within the same movement by making the moderate faction seem more reasonable– or reduce support for moderate factions by making the entire movement seem unreasonable. Results of two online experiments conducted with diverse samples (N = 2,772), including a study of the animal rights movement and a preregistered study of the climate movement, show that the presence of a radical flank increases support for a moderate faction within the same movement. Further, it is the use of radical tactics, such as property destruction or violence, rather than a radical agenda, that drives this effect. Results indicate the effect owes to a contrast effect: use of radical tactics by one flank led the more moderate faction to appear less radical, even though all characteristics of the moderate faction were held constant. This perception led participants to identify more with and, in turn, express greater support for the more moderate faction. These results suggest that activist groups that employ unpopular tactics can increase support for other groups within the same movement, pointing to a hidden way in which movement factions are complementary, despite pursuing divergent approaches to social change.

Large-scale disruptive activism strengthened environmental attitudes in the United Kingdom

“…There was no evidence for a population-level backlash in attitudes to environmental problems in response to the rebellion (Kountouris & Williams, in press;Smith, 2019). This is also generally consistent with further recent experimental evidence suggesting that disruptive protest does not necessarily reduce support for mainstream environmental issues, even amongst demographics typically hostile to such protest (Bugden, 2020;Simpson et al, 2022).…”

“…Extreme protest can therefore be seen as unjustified when it appears to ignore legitimate routes to change, but when legitimate routes are perceived as inadequate, extreme protest may not damage the broader movement. Experimental work has demonstrated that a radical flank effect can apply to the climate movement, whereby support for the movement mainstream can be increased by exposure to a faction using unpopular disruptive tactics, because the mainstream looks better in comparison (Simpson et al, 2022). The above reviewed literature focuses on radical environmental protest, but we note that similar positive and negative effects have been found regarding radical tactics deployed for other causes such as civil rights (Shuman et al, 2021).…”

“…When the environmental cause is seen as neglected by authority, disruptive action can be forgiven to the extent that opinion regarding the cause is not negatively impacted, even when the action is not supported (Farrer & Klein, 2019). Disapproval of what is seen as a radical minority within the movement can even increase support for mainstream demands (Simpson et al, 2022), which may partly explain the observed increase in environmental concern.…”

“…Opinions differ about the importance of passive public support. Some argue that a movement can shift public opinion in the right direction and gain further recruits by using high-profile tactics to highlight issues, even if the tactics are broadly unpopular (Lam, 2021): essentially a radical flank argument (Haines, 2013;Simpson et al, 2022). Others emphasise indirect pressure on the government via influencing public opinion and involving other actors (Gunningham, 2019), or argue that such a movement cannot create sufficient direct or indirect pressure to achieve change without appreciable public support for the movement itself (Matthews, 2020).…”

“…Thirdly, the cause may be seen as justified and failed by legitimate routes (Climate Change Committee, 2021The Week, 2021), meaning that, unusually (Farrer & Klein, 2019), more extreme protest may be seen as legitimate (Bugden, 2020). Fourthly, disapproval of XR tactics might lead to increased support for more mainstream climate demands (Simpson et al, 2022).…”