In recent years, a new wave of climate activism has captured public attention through highly visible—and highly controversial—tactics. One of the most debated methods is mass traffic obstruction, where activists block roads to raise awareness and demand urgent action on climate change. The group Last Generation in Germany extensively used this tactic between 2022 and 2024. These protests often provoke strong reactions, including from bystanders who attempt to forcibly remove activists. But how do these tactics really affect public opinion?
In our new study, co-authored with Aiko Wagner and Arne Carstens and published in the European Political Science Review, we set out to understand how the public responds to these disruptive forms of protest. Using an online survey experiment, we presented participants with different protest scenarios, varying both the level of obstruction and the presence or absence of vigilante intervention.
Our findings challenge some common assumptions. As expected, people viewed obstructive protests less favorably than non-obstructive ones. However, this disapproval did not significantly reduce support for the climate activists’ underlying goals. Even more surprisingly, when bystanders responded with vigilante actions—such as physically confronting protesters—it had no measurable effect on public opinion in our sample.
What does this mean for the climate movement? Disruptive tactics like mass obstruction are unlikely to win over undecided individuals or expand the activist coalition. But they also don’t appear to alienate existing supporters or damage the movement’s broader cause. In that sense, these high-risk actions may be strategically justifiable: they generate media attention and put pressure on authorities without backfiring in public opinion.
As the climate crisis intensifies, so too will debates over how far activists should go to demand change. Our findings contribute to a growing body of research on the strategic dilemmas of social movements—and the fine line between disruption and persuasion.