The present studies experimentally examine the impacts of the expected political efficacy and the expected repression of climate protest on intentions to engage in normative and non-normative climate action. Our research is conducted in the UK, which has several active climate movements and has seen both frequent climate protests and severe repressive measures over the last few years (BBC, 2023; Gayle, 2023). We test both the direct causal effects of efficacy and repression on normative and non-normative collective action intentions, as well as their indirect effects through the other key motivators, specifically identification with the climate movement, identity consolidation and participative efficacies, a sense of moral obligation to act for climate change mitigation, and moral outrage as a key emotional antecedent of engagement (Ayanian et al., 2021; Lodewijkx et al., 2008; Thomas & McGarty, 2009). Below we give an overview of key findings regarding the roles of political efficacy and repression in shaping collective action intentions and outline our predictions.
Political Efficacy as a Predictor of Collective Action
The importance of instrumental motives has long been emphasized in models of collective action (Gamson, 1992; Klandermans, 1997; Zald & McCarthy, 1979). Social psychological research has focused on the belief that one’s group can promote the desired goal and demonstrated that the perceived efficacy of collective action predicts intentions to get engaged (see van Zomeren et al., 2008, for meta-analytic evidence). As noted above, the anticipated effectiveness of protest can be evaluated along a range of different dimensions (see Hornsey et al., 2006; Saab et al., 2015). Our main focus here is on the political efficacy of collective action, that is, the belief that collective action will be effective in addressing the movement’s political grievances and achieving the desired policy change (Saab et al., 2014).
There is extensive evidence that a sense of the political efficacy of collective action increases motivation to engage (e.g., Mummendey et al., 1999; Sabucedo et al., 2019; Thomas et al., 2012; van Zomeren et al., 2004). However, some research found political efficacy to be unrelated or even negatively related to action intentions (Ayanian et al., 2021; Cichocka et al., 2018; Osborne et al., 2015; Tausch et al., 2011), suggesting that a sense of political efficacy can activate different motives. For example, the classical literature on mobilization suggested that a sense that protests are effective could generate a free-riding effect, meaning that those who believe that the movement will succeed expect to benefit from the action without having to contribute themselves (Olson, 1965). Moreover, studies of collective action intentions in authoritarian countries where there the likelihood that the authorities will give in to the protesters’ demands is remote, found political efficacy to be unrelated to action intentions, while other forms of efficacy (identity consolidation and participative efficacies) played a greater role in predicting engagement (Ayanian et al., 2021). Finally, research has demonstrated that political efficacy is negatively related to intentions to engage in non-normative action (Tausch et al., 2011), suggesting that a perceived lack of efficacy can have a radicalizing effect.
In sum, while much research suggests that a sense of political efficacy is important in mobilising individuals to participate in collective action, there is also conflicting evidence demonstrating that a lack of political efficacy does not necessarily disincentivise participation and may even promote the adoption of more radical, non-normative forms of action. We will consider these alternative possibilities in the present research by experimentally manipulating the political efficacy of pro-environmental collective action. Experimental manipulations of the motivators of collective action are rare in the literature (see Bäck et al., 2013; van Zomeren et al., 2004, for exceptions) and, to our knowledge, have never been applied in the context of climate action. Understanding the impact of information about the political impact of protest on intentions to participate has important implications for the communication and mobilization efforts of social movements.
We will also assess the potential indirect effects of efficacy on action intentions, which might operate in opposing directions. For example, low political efficacy of climate protest might produce moral outrage, an established positive predictor of collective action (Ayanian & Tausch, 2016; Ayanian et al., 2021; Pozzi et al., 2022; Sabucedo et al., 2019), but might simultaneously reduce a sense of participative efficacy, which undermines engagement (van Zomeren et al., 2013). Finally, we will examine whether the extent to which people are concerned about climate change, and the extent to which they are psychologically invested in the climate movement (i.e., their politicized identification) moderate the direct and indirect effects of our manipulation.
The Impact of Repression on Collective Action
Broadly speaking, repression can be conceptualized as any measure that seeks to "prevent, control, or constrain non-institutional collective action (e.g., protest), including its initiation" (Earl, 2011, p. 263). This typically refers to institutional structures and actions that restrict political opportunities available to those who challenge the established system (Tarrow, 1993). Repression can entail the introduction of laws limiting or prohibiting certain activities, restrictions on the freedom of expression and association, and the introduction of hurdles to the formation of oppositional groups (V-Dem, 2024). For individuals, repressive measures increase the potential costs and risks of engagement in collective action through fines, arrests and imprisonment, or physical threats (see Ayanian et al., 2021).
Repressive measures have always been central in protecting authoritarian regimes (Sika, 2019), however, a wave of popular protests in recent years over a range of issues such as austerity measures, women’s rights, and racism (Clayton, 2018; Emejulu, 2018; Karyotis & Rüdig, 2018) have been accompanied by an increase in repression of protests by many governments in democratic countries. Repression has been particularly severe and disproportionate for environmental protests. It has included actions such as the use of water cannons, pepper spray and other painful methods against protesters, the creation of new criminal offences to prohibit certain forms of protest, the use of counter-terrorism laws to enable surveillance, strip searches and extended periods in police custody, as well as harsh sentencing (see Forst, 2024, for extensive documentation of repression).
How do repressive measures impact people’s willingness to participate in collective action? Research on the psychological effects of protest repression on activists and potential sympathizers is relatively novel (see Anisin, 2016; Ayanian et al., 2021; Ayanian & Tausch, 2016; Honari et al., 2018; Uysal et al., 2022, 2023) and has thus far yielded mixed findings. On the one hand, and consistent with the intuitive reasoning about its deterrent effects, repression can undermine protest by reducing perceptions of political opportunity (Klandermans, 1984) and instilling fear (Honari, 2018), collective action on climate issues was found to be less common among concerned people in more repressive countries (Uysal et al., 2023).
Nevertheless, research has also supported the opposite relationship, referred to as the 'repression paradox' (Brockett, 1993). According to this idea, attempts to repress social movements can produce a backlash effect and fuel rather than deter protest participation when repressive measures are perceived as illegitimate restrictions of fundamental rights (Ayanian et al., 2021). Specifically, illegitimate repressive measures create a sense of moral outrage (for evidence, see Ayanian et al., 2021; Ayanian & Tausch, 2016; Aytaç et al., 2018; Brockett, 1993; Li et al., 2023), an action-oriented emotional reaction felt when something is perceived to violate one’s moral values (Batson et al., 2007). Moral outrage is likely to be an even stronger driver of action than other, non-moral emotions (see Lodewijkx et al., 2008; Thomas & McGarty, 2009) due to the strong defensive drive that perceived moral transgressions generate (Skitka, 2002). Furthermore, the violation of critical moral values can prompt people towards more subversive courses of action (Dono et al., 2018; Fiske & Rai, 2014). Recent research has provided initial support for this idea, showing that repression can radicalize movements (Li et al., 2023). Thus, we might expect repression to increase willingness to engage in both normative and non-normative collective actions, and that this effect is at least partially mediated by moral outrage.
The present studies experimentally investigate whether perceived repression disincentivises or galvanises environmental protest by manipulating participants’ expectations of repression. Experimental manipulations of perceived repression are scarce (see Aytaç et al., 2018; Uysal et al., 2022, for exceptions) and have, to our knowledge, never been applied to understand the effect of repression on environmental protest. We examine the direct effects of repression on both normative and non-normative collective action intentions, consider its effects on the other motivating variables (moral outrage, moral obligation, identification with the climate movement, and identity consolidation and participative efficacies), and test for repression’s indirect effects on action tendencies via these variables.
Based on prior correlational evidence (Ayanian et al., 2021; Uysal et al., 2023), we expect that repression increases action tendencies by inducing moral outrage. In addition, as prior research demonstrated that moral outrage and moral obligation are linked (Ayanian et al., 2021), we will also test for a serial mediation model whereby moral outrage increases action tendencies via a heightened sense of moral obligation to act. Again, we will examine whether the extent to which people are concerned about climate change and the extent to which they identify with the climate movement moderate the direct and indirect effects of repression.
Both studies included in the present work received ethical approval from the ethics committee of [BLINDED]. All study materials and measures, and data are publicly available online (https://osf.io/9fm4x/?view_only=342986a736b8400784c7e53526da80f7).