Abstract
How do U.S. voters view the disruptiveness and effectiveness of social movement tactics? Strategically-used assertive tactics can enable movement success, though tactics considered too disruptive or violent may reduce public support. The authors investigate how U.S. voters perceive the disruptiveness and effectiveness of various protest tactics. In a representative survey experiment, 497 U.S. voters ranked the disruptiveness and effectiveness of 65 tactics. The authors find that tactics’ perceived disruptiveness and effectiveness exhibit an inverse relationship and a continuous character. The findings suggest that multiple, contextual factors influence public perceptions of protests.
Activists leverage wide-ranging tactical repertoires to achieve their goals (Larson 2013). Although the strategic use of assertive tactics enables movement success (Stephan and Chenoweth 2008), tactics considered too disruptive or violent can reduce public support (Larson 2013). We build on prior research investigating the relationship between perceived violence and support for protest tactics (Simpson, Willer, and Feinberg 2018) by examining how U.S. voters evaluate the disruptiveness and effectiveness of protest tactics. Drawing from Piven and Cloward’s (1977:24) suggestion that “the most useful way to think about the effectiveness of protest is to examine the disruptive effects on institutions of different forms of mass defiance,” we examine whether the suggested link between disruptiveness and effectiveness is perceived similarly by U.S. voters across different tactical contexts.
Data and Methods
We conducted an online survey of 497 respondents representative of 2020 U.S. voters. Respondents were presented with randomized pairs of protest tactics originating from a list of 65, selecting more disruptive tactics in 10 pairs and more effective tactics in another 10 pairs, totaling 9,940 evaluations. We estimate the predicted probability that tactics would be considered more disruptive or more effective than another random tactic using the Bradley-Terry model to obtain aggregate rankings from paired comparisons (Bradley and Terry 1952). Our visualization compares tactics’ win probability in cross-tactic disruptiveness and effectiveness comparisons.
Interpretation
Figure 1 shows the calculated disruptiveness (red) and effectiveness scores (blue). For example, the tactic “bombing an empty government building” is most disruptive, with a predicted probability of 0.98 of being viewed as more disruptive than another tactic. Conversely, it is estimated to be perceived as more effective than another randomly selected tactic with probability of only 0.23. We observe a continuum of disruptiveness and effectiveness scores rather than clear binary distinctions. Additionally, respondents viewed blocking store entrances, disrupting meetings, and hacking websites as highly disruptive despite their lack of physical violence.
Predicted probability of tactics being viewed as more disruptive or effective compared with other protest tactics.
Tactics’ perceived disruptiveness and effectiveness are negatively correlated (r = −0.308, p < .05). Although social movements scholarship highlights the strategic use of disruptive protest tactics in social movement success, respondents consider nondisruptive tactics (meeting with public officials, organizing a public teach-in, and setting up an informational Web site) highly effective. Market-based activities (withdrawing investments), educational campaigns (organizing a public teach-in), and institutionalized political actions (meeting with public officials) are also considered highly effective. That respondents rate tactics contingent on institutional proximity and/or economic capital as highly effective indicates potential unequal access to tactical repertoires considered most effective by U.S. voters. This highlights the importance of considering contextual factors, including the social locations of protesters and their targets, when researching perceptions of protest tactics.
Conclusion
Our visualization shows that U.S. voters view protest tactics as exhibiting a continuous spectrum of disruptiveness and effectiveness, with highly disruptive tactics perceived as less effective and institutionalized actions seen as effective but not overly disruptive. Our findings also suggest that public perceptions of protest tactic effectiveness and disruptiveness are complex, contextual, and contingent on multiple factors, including perceived violence, institutional proximity, and economic capital.
Supplemental Material
sj-docx-1-srd-10.1177_23780231231212374 – Supplemental material for Comparing Perceived Disruptiveness and Effectiveness of Protest Tactics
Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-srd-10.1177_23780231231212374 for Comparing Perceived Disruptiveness and Effectiveness of Protest Tactics by Katherine Furl, Todd Lu, Austin Hoang-Nam Vo and Neal Caren in Socius
Footnotes
Supplemental Material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.
Author Biographies
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
