A Fight Against All Odds? The Causal Effects of Perceived Political Efficacy and Protest Repression on Motivation to Engage in Normative and Non-normative Climate Protest

Despite increasing concern about climate change and widespread demonstrations demanding urgent action, governments worldwide are failing to meet climate pledges and many have introduced anti-protest laws that limit citizens’ ability to hold them accountable. We investigate the impacts of the political efficacy of climate protests and the risks of protest repression on people’s motivation to engage in both conventional, normative and radical, non-normative pro-environmental collective action. We ran two experiments (total N = 443) among residents in the UK, where recent legislative changes have severely restricted climate protests. Using fabricated news articles, we manipulated political efficacy and repression in a 2x2 between-subjects design. Our manipulations successfully shifted perceptions of political efficacy and the risks of repression, however they did not produce direct effects on action intentions. Rather, these factors impacted action intentions indirectly by shaping other motives. Specifically, political efficacy exerted a positive indirect effect on normative (but not non-normative) action intentions by shifting people’s beliefs about the value of their own contribution (Study 1) and the likelihood that taking action will strengthen the movement (Study 2). In line with a backlash effect, and suggesting that restrictions on protest could radicalize action, repression exerted a positive indirect effect on both normative and non-normative action intentions by generating moral outrage. Moderation of effects by climate change concern and politicized identity lend further nuance to these findings. Our research provides scarce evidence of the causal effects of efficacy and repression on protest intentions and has implications for mobilization efforts of climate movements.