A Framework for Effective Social Protests

In an era defined by increasing social activism, understanding the mechanics of effective protest is essential for researchers and “social actors,” or organizers of social protests, as well as for politicians, policymakers, and journalists navigating social change. A review of literature, “When Are Social Protests Effective?”¹, by Eric Shuman, a postdoctoral fellow at New York University, working with Amit Goldenberg, Assistant Professor of Business Administration at HBS and Principal Investigator at D^3’s Digital Emotions Lab; Tamar Saguy, Associate Professor at Reichman University; Eran Halperin, Professor of Psychology at Hebrew University; and Martijn van Zomeren, Associate Professor at the University of Groningen, describes a framework, outlined in the article below, for assessing the effectiveness of social protests.

Key Insight: The Type of Protest Matters

“Different types of protest can be categorized based on the tactics the protest group deploys.” [1]

As the first aspect of their framework, the authors describe four main types of protests: 

• Normative nonviolent, which aligns with societal norms and includes peaceful demonstrations and petitions as, for example, the Global Climate March before the 2015 UN Climate Change Conference. 
• Nonnormative nonviolent, which disrupts the status quo without violence, such as sit-ins and road blockades, for example, the Montgomery, Alabama Bus Boycotts in 1955-1956. 
• Nonnormative violent, which involves direct harm to people and property, such as the 1992 Los Angeles Riots. 
• Radical flanks, which are extreme elements within a larger social movement that are more willing to use drastic tactics and less willing to compromise. For example, both the Black Panther movement and the environmental movement have radical flank members.

Key Insight: Target Audiences Respond Differently

“[We] suggest that the most common and relevant way for defining target audiences in the current literature is based on whether they are sympathetic versus resistant to the social change sought by social protests.” [2]

The second prong of the framework is the target audience, which research on protest effectiveness often considers, using measures like political ideology, group identification, or pre-existing attitudes to assess openness or resistance to social change. Conservatives, for example, are typically more resistant than liberals. Strong group identification with the status quo also correlates with resistance. These measures serve as proxies for attitudes toward social change and this research defines target audiences as follows: 

• Sympathetic groups already support a movement’s goals and are more likely to participate when approached through normative actions. 
• Resistant groups do not want the protests to succeed—their goal is to end the protests, so they are difficult to mobilize.

Key Insight: Types of Social Change Outcomes

“Mobilization has been assessed in terms of attitudes and willingness to participate […] Policy change similarly has been evaluated […] in terms of public opinion supporting proposed policy changes and actual policy change and implementation.” [3]

The final element in the framework for evaluating protest effectiveness is the outcome.  The authors cite two common protest outcomes—mobilization and policy change—and find that:

• Normative nonviolent protests are often effective at mobilizing participants among sympathetic audiences.
• Disruptive protests, which can include nonnormative nonviolent protests and protests involving radical flanks tend to be more effective at achieving policy change among resistant target audiences.
• Radical flanks within larger movements may positively affect both sympathetic and resistant target audiences. The disruption produced by a radical flank may increase the chance of policy changes and help normative nonviolent protests to mobilize sympathizers. Similarly, a combination of violent and nonviolent protests can affect policy change, such as the BlackLivesMatter movement.

Why This Matters

Understanding when social protests are effective is crucial for driving meaningful social change. The sources highlight that different protest tactics can yield distinct outcomes, depending on the target audience. This knowledge empowers social movements to strategically deploy their resources, utilizing normative nonviolent protests for mobilization and disruptive protests for policy change. A deeper comprehension of these dynamics can guide organizers in maximizing their impact while fostering informed decision-making for policymakers and the public. This nuanced perspective facilitates a more constructive dialogue and understanding of the complex interplay between protest tactics, public perception, and political response, ultimately shaping the trajectory of social movements and their ability to achieve lasting change.

Footnotes

(1) NB: the HBS link leads to an article-in-press version of the review, which was published, as noted in our reference notes, in Trends in Cognitive Sciences in March 2024.

References

[1] Eric Shuman, Amit Goldenberg, Tamar Saguy, Eran Halperin, and Martijn van Zomeren, “When Are Social Protests Effective?”, Trends in Cognitive Sciences (March 2024): 252-263, 2.

[2] Shuman et al., “When Are Social Protests Effective?”, 5.

[3] Shuman et al., “When Are Social Protests Effective?”, 5.

Meet the Authors

---