Why do protestors use disruptive, confrontational tactics? New research shows they're not just a last resort
Public protests are globally, from climate marches and university occupations to roadblocks and mass political demonstrations. These actions may sometimes include confrontational tactics such as civil disobedience, disruption and, at times, violent resistance.
At Columbia University in the US, for instance, pro-Palestine student protests for their tactics. They ranged from non-confrontational actions such as gatherings and sit-ins to campus encampments and occupations aimed at disrupting daily activities, which eventually led to confrontations with police.
Actions like these often spark debate. Are activists acting strategically, or simply reacting out of desperation and rage? Our sheds light on this question. Contrary to popular belief, people do not only turn to confrontational protest because they are desperate or lack political alternatives.
Confrontational protests are . They are often associated with extremism, disorder, or desperation. So it's long been a mystery why people choose such confrontational forms of protest, especially given more conventional options like petitions or authorized rallies offer broader public support and visibility.
Get free science updates with Science X Daily and Weekly Newsletters — to customize your preferences!
In our surveys of 3,833 people across three countries—Germany, Turkey and the UK—we found that people choose confrontational action when they believe it is effective and legitimate for achieving their group's political goals.
That said, in some protests, confrontational tactics may emerge spontaneously as a self-defense, driven by immediate threats. But it is not simply an emotional outburst or a last resort: it can be a strategic choice.
This challenges a widely discussed idea in social and political psychology called the . According to this view, people are driven to confrontational protest when they see non-confrontational action (such as voting, petitioning, or authorized marches) as ineffective. This is often because they have little political trust or are oppressed. Our studies ultimately tested this hypothesis.
We found that most people rated non-confrontational actions as more effective than confrontational ones. But they still saw confrontational tactics as worthwhile if they also seemed effective and justifiable.
Interestingly, we discovered that low political trust—a lack of belief that the political system works fairly—did not predict confrontational protest. In fact, it was only weakly linked to perceived effectiveness and legitimacy of such tactics.
While previous theories suggested that people with nothing to lose would be the ones most drawn to radical action, our findings paint a more complex picture. People don't necessarily need to lose all faith in the political system before considering disruptive protest. Rather, they judge whether a specific tactic will advance their cause and align with their collective moral values.
We also found that when people think that protests are more likely to be met with state violence, they are more likely to view confrontational tactics as legitimate and effective. In other words, when crowds foresee push-back, they recalibrate their strategies rather than withdrawing altogether from activism.
Constructive disruption
This research matters now more than ever. From climate movement and in many countries to anti-government and pro-democracy protests in the , , and , we are witnessing a global wave of protest crowds.
Understanding what drives people to disruptive and confrontational actions can help both policymakers and the public make sense of protest in today's divided world. This may be a better option than moralizing about good versus bad forms of protests, which serves to silence and criminalize disruptive and confrontational actions.
The former UK home secretary Suella Braverman labeled climate protesters "extremists" and pro-Palestinian protests "hate marches." She also . But such an approach is only likely to make the protests more disruptive.
Similarly, several to UK parliamentary reports on protest policing distinguish "right to peaceful protest" from any kind of disruptive and confrontational activism. They also highlight that the legal definition of "serious disruption" has been widened.
But viewing all disruptive protests as being outside of legal boundaries is likely to create pushback among activists and limit the potential constructive social influence of such protests.
We argue that it's time to rethink how we talk about confrontational and disruptive protests. Rather than viewing them as irrational, extreme or born of despair, we should understand it as part of a wider repertoire of political action.
Here, labeling a set of protests through binary, moralized terms can lead to overlooking and silencing a crucial and effective protest strategy: constructive disruption. Constructive disruption relies on carefully balancing non-violent but disruptive actions. This can apply pressure for change while signaling positive intent that encourages a conciliatory response to protest.
As a group of social psychologists , constructive disruption could generate support even among those who are most resistant.
If we recognize that such tactics are often grounded in a sense of justice and strategic reasoning, we can move away from moralistic judgments and toward democratic dialogue by better engaging with the underlying demands that drive them.
As protest movements continue to shape political life around the world, we believe it's time to take their strategies seriously—not just their slogans.
Provided by The Conversation
This article is republished from under a Creative Commons license. Read the .