Do Disruptive Protests Help Vegan Advocacy?
In Western countries, only a small proportion of people—approximately 1% to 2%—stick to a vegan diet. Furthermore, research has found that many vegans experience stigma for their choice. Consequently, actions that encourage widespread social change, such as protests, are arguably crucial for gaining support for veganism.
In other social movements, studies show that non-violent campaigns tend to be more effective than their violent counterparts. They often result in higher likeability, support, and willingness to participate in the movement from the public. This presents a dilemma for vegan protestors: while more extreme methods may attract more media attention and raise more awareness, they could simultaneously contribute to a negative public image of vegans.
The authors of this study point out that non-violent movements are often viewed as more ethical and are more likely to foster a sense of shared identity rather than an “us vs. them” mindset among non-protestors. However, the effect of non-violent but disruptive protests (e.g., blocking traffic) remain unclear. To examine this further, the authors compared the effects of disruptive vs. peaceful (i.e., non-violent and non-disruptive) protests.
In the first part of the study, researchers recruited a sample of 325 Australians and 124 U.K. non-veg*n participants to read real news articles about vegan protests, including ones involving disruptive actions, such as blocking traffic for 45 minutes, and protests that were non-disruptive and peaceful. Afterward, the participants answered questionnaires about their meat commitment, attitudes toward vegans, and the 4Ns of meat consumption (which are often used to justify eating meat).
The researchers were particularly interested in how different social groups would respond, including women vs. men and people with right-wing authoritarian views. They found that reading about disruptive vegan protests led to more negative attitudes towards vegans among women, but not men. However, men tended to have more negative views about vegans and higher levels of meat commitment and 4N justification overall.
In a subsequent study, researchers recruited a sample of 934 Australian university students, including omnivores and vegetarians. Participants were shown news articles about either disruptive or non-disruptive vegan protests or fast-fashion protests. In addition to the questionnaire items from Study 1, they were also asked about their feelings of similarity to and support for the activists, as well as the morality of the protesters.
This second study revealed that reading about vegan protests, regardless of their disruptiveness, led to more negative attitudes toward vegans and a stronger endorsement of meat-eating than reading about fast-fashion protests. Furthermore, participants with a higher level of right-wing authoritarianism, characterized by a tendency for conformity and conservative views, showed more negative attitudes towards vegan protests and stronger endorsement of meat-eating. Participants’ city of origin, dietary preference, or gender did not influence these outcomes.
The researchers also discovered that disruptive and non-disruptive vegan protesters were seen as more immoral than fast-fashion ones. Participants felt less similar to disruptive protesters compared to non-disruptive ones, and less similar to vegan activists than to fast-fashion activists. The authors describe a chain of events in the data: reading about vegan protests made participants view the activists as more immoral, reducing their perceived similarity with the activists, and fostering more negative attitudes toward vegans.
The researchers explain some of their results through cognitive dissonance: when faced with articles emphasizing veganism’s benefits, people may strengthen their commitment to meat-eating to reduce the conflict between their dietary choices and their values. They also emphasize that language that reminds people of death can be triggering — studies have found that mortality reminders encourage people to double down on their beliefs and become more hostile toward outgroups.
While the results are insightful, the study relied on a sample of undergraduate psychology students who don’t represent the general public. Likewise, because the researchers used real news articles, they couldn’t control for every variable (in other words, something in the news articles may have influenced the results). Finally, measuring animal advocacy protests is a difficult task with mixed results, as Faunalytics has discussed in this blog.
The findings of this study suggest that, while disruptive protests can negatively affect attitudes towards vegans, non-disruptive protests can have the same effect, posing a significant challenge for vegan activists. This underscores the need for further research to fully understand the complex dynamics of social movements and public attitudes toward them. In the meantime, the authors recommend that protesters try to avoid death-related language and emphasize their similarities with the public, such as their shared values and beliefs.