Abstract
Despite the fact that law-breaking or violent climate action tactics receive enormous media coverage, the psychological predictors of intentions to engage in these tactics remain poorly understood. This study examined demographic and psychological factors theoretically associated with conventional and radical climate intentions among 1427 self-identified supporters of climate action, tracked in three waves over 12 months. Conventional activism intentions were predicted by established models emphasising the role of moral conviction, anger, group identification, and group efficacy in shaping action. However, in the case of radical climate action, these variables were either weak predictors or non-significant predictors. Contrary to the notion that radical climate actors are driven by outgroup antipathy and ideological intensity, radical action intentions were positively associated with warmth and empathy toward climate change opponents, unrelated to political ideology, and negatively related to belief in climate change. Radical action intentions were also predicted by youth, personality, and—most strongly—the perception that people who support action on climate change have suffered more than opponents (collective victimhood). These findings suggest that theories require updating to account for the unique motivations associated with support for radical tactics in the climate change context. Findings have implications for activists and researchers seeking to understand the evolving landscape of climate protest and public support for disruptive activism.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
Data are available on OSF: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/8D9NH.
Code availability
Code is available on OSF: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/8D9NH.
References
Fritsche, I. et al. The power of we: evidence for group-based control. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 49, 19–32 (2013).
Hornsey, M. J., Chapman, C. M. & Oelrichs, D. M. Ripple effects: can information about the collective impact of individual actions boost perceived efficacy about climate change? J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 97, 104217 (2021).
Gulliver, R. E., Star, C., Fielding, K. S. & Louis, W. R. A systematic review of the outcomes of sustained environmental collective action. Environ. Sci. Policy 133, 180–192 (2022).
Lee, K., O’Neill, S., Blackwood, L. & Barnett, J. Perspectives of UK adolescents on the youth climate strikes. Nat. Clim. Change 12, 1–4 (2022).
Wright, S., Taylor, D. M. & Moghaddam, F. M. Responding to membership in a disadvantaged group: from acceptance to collective protest. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 58, 994–1003 (1990).
Louis, W. et al. The volatility of collective action: theoretical analysis and empirical data. Polit. Psychol. 41, 35–74 (2020).
Becker, J. C. & Tausch, N. A dynamic model of engagement in normative and non-normative collective action: Psychological antecedents, consequences, and barriers. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 26, 43–92 (2015).
Moskalenko, S. & McCauley, C. Measuring political mobilization: the distinction between activism and radicalism. Terror. Polit. Violence 21, 239–260 (2009).
Finkel, S. E., Muller, E. N. & Opp, K.-D. Personal influence, collective rationality, and mass political action. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 83, 885–903 (1989).
Zaal, M. P., Laar, C. V., Ståhl, T., Ellemers, N. & Derks, B. By any means necessary: the effects of regulatory focus and moral conviction on hostile and benevolent forms of collective action. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 50, 670–689 (2011).
Selvanathan, H. P. & Leidner, B. Modes of ingroup identification and notions of justice provide distinct pathways to normative and nonnormative collective action in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. J. Confl. Resolut. 64, 1754–1788 (2020).
Bashir, N. Y., Lockwood, P., Chasteen, A. L., Nadolny, D. & Noyes, I. The ironic impact of activists: negative stereotypes reduce social change influence. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 43, 614–626 (2013).
Nylund, J. L., Thai, M. & Hornsey, M. J. The climate activist’s dilemma: extreme protests reduce movement support but raise climate concern and intentions. J. Environ. Psychol. 106, 102682 (2025).
Gulliver, R. E., Wang, X., Louis, W. R., Fielding, K. S. & Colvin, R. M. Media ownership and coverage patterns of established, disruptive, and unconventional climate advocacy groups. Clim. Change 178, 25 (2025).
Capstick, S. et al. Civil disobedience by scientists helps press for urgent climate action. Nat. Clim. Change 12, 773–774 (2022).
Gardner, C. J. & Wordley, C. F. R. Scientists must act on our own warnings to humanity. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 1271–1272 (2019).
Shuman, E., Saguy, T., Van Zomeren, M. & Halperin, E. Disrupting the system constructively: testing the effectiveness of nonnormative nonviolent collective action. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 121, 819–841 (2021).
Malm, A. How to Blow Up a Pipeline: Learning to Fight in a World on Fire (Verso, 2021).
Gulliver, R. E., Banks, R., Fielding, K. S. & Louis, W. R. The criminalization of climate change protest. Contention 11, 24–54 (2023).
Van Zomeren, M., Postmes, T. & Spears, R. Toward an integrative social identity model of collective action: A quantitative research synthesis of three socio-psychological perspectives. Psychol. Bull. 134, 504–535 (2008).
Thomas, E. F., Mavor, K. I. & McGarty, C. Social identities facilitate and encapsulate action-relevant constructs: a test of the social identity model of collective action. Group Process. Intergr. Relat. 15, 75–88 (2012).
Fritsche, I., Barth, M., Jugert, P., Masson, T. & Reese, G. A social identity model of pro-environmental action (SIMPEA). Psychol. Rev. 125, 245–269 (2018).
Thomas, E. F., Duncan, L., McGarty, C., Louis, W. R. & Smith, L. G. E. MOBILISE: a higher-order integration of collective action research to address global challenges. Polit. Psychol. 43, 107–164 (2022).
van Zomeren, M., Spears, R., Fischer, A. H. & Leach, C. W. Put your money where your mouth is! Explaining collective action tendencies through group-based anger and group efficacy. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 87, 649–664 (2004).
Leal, A. et al. Attitude moralization in the context of collective action: how participation in collective action may foster moralization over time. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000486 (2024).
Skitka, L. J., Hanson, B. E., Morgan, G. S. & Wisneski, D. C. The psychology of moral conviction. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 72, 347–366 (2021).
Skitka, L. J. & Wisneski, D. C. Moral conviction and emotion. Emot. Rev. 3, 328–330 (2011).
van Zomeren, M., Postmes, T. & Spears, R. The return of moral motivation in predicting collective action against collective disadvantage. Int. J. Soc. Psychol. 26, 163–176 (2011).
van Zomeren, M., Kutlaca, M. & Turner-Zwinkels, F. Integrating who “we” are with what “we” (will not) stand for: a further extension of the social identity model of collective action. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 29, 122–160 (2018).
van Zomeren, M., Saguy, T. & Schellhaas, F. M. H. Believing in “making a difference” to collective efforts: participative efficacy beliefs as a unique predictor of collective action. Group Process. Intergr. Relat. 16, 618–634 (2013).
Agostini, M. & van Zomeren, M. Toward a comprehensive and potentially cross-cultural model of why people engage in collective action: a quantitative research synthesis of four motivations and structural constraints. Psychol. Bull. 147, 667–700 (2021).
Zomeren, M. Four core social-psychological motivations to undertake collective action. Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass 7, 378–388 (2013).
Swann, W., Gómez, A., Seyle, D., Morales, J. & Huici, C. Identity fusion: the interplay of personal and social identities in extreme group behavior. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 96, 995–1011 (2009).
Smith, L. G. E., Blackwood, L. & Thomas, E. F. The need to refocus on the group as the site of radicalization. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 15, 327–352 (2020).
Louis, W. R. et al. Failure leads protest movements to support more radical tactics. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 13, 675–687 (2022).
Landmann, H. & Naumann, J. Being positively moved by climate protest predicts peaceful collective action. Glob. Environ. Psychol. https://doi.org/10.5964/gep.11113 (2024).
Saab, R., Spears, R., Tausch, N. & Sasse, J. Predicting aggressive collective action based on the efficacy of peaceful and aggressive actions. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 46, 529–543 (2016).
Tausch, N. et al. Explaining radical group behavior: developing emotion and efficacy routes to normative and nonnormative collective action. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 101, 129–148 (2011).
Bertin, P. et al. Conspiracy blaming in the aftermath of group relative deprivation: the moderating role of national narcissism. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 54, 1393–1415 (2024).
Ayanian, A. H., Uluğ, ÖM., Radke, H. R. M. & Zick, A. The social psychological predictors of men’s backlash responses to the #MeToo movement. Group Process. Intergr. Relat. 27, 1680–1711 (2024).
Furlong, C. & Vignoles, V. L. Social identification in collective climate activism: predicting participation in the environmental movement, Extinction Rebellion. Identity 21, 20–35 (2021).
Uysal, M. S., Martinez, N. & Vestergren, S. The horror of today and the terror of tomorrow: the role of future existential risks and present-day political risks in climate activism. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 64, e12821 (2025).
Pittaway, C. R., Fielding, K. S. & Louis, W. R. Pathways to conventional and radical climate action: the role of temporal orientation, environmental cognitive alternatives, and eco-anxiety. Glob. Environ. Change 87, 102886 (2024).
Shanaah, S., Fritsche, I. & Osmundsen, M. Support for pro-climate and ecofascist extremism: correlates and intersections. Democr. Secur. 20, 46–68 (2024).
Zacher, H. The dark side of environmental activism. Personal. Individ. Differ. 219, 112506 (2024).
Bird, L. H., Thomas, E. F. & Wenzel, M. We despair’: examining the role of political despair for collective action and well-being. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 54, 745–766 (2024).
Moghaddam, F. M. in Mutual Radicalization: How Groups and Nations Drive Each Other to Extremes 19–38 (American Psychological Association, 2018).
Bliuc, A.-M. et al. Public division about climate change rooted in conflicting socio-political identities. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 226–229 (2015).
Morrison, T. H. et al. Radical interventions for climate-impacted systems. Nat. Clim. Change 12, 1100–1106 (2022).
Loy, L. S., Bauer, M. & Wullenkord, M. C. How dare we? The relation between language use, global identity, and climate activism. Glob. Environ. Psychol. 2, e11101 (2024).
Lamb, W. F. et al. Discourses of climate delay. Glob. Sustain. 3, e17 (2020).
Brulle, R. J., Timmons Roberts, J. & Spencer, M. C. (Eds). Climate obstruction across Europe (Oxford University Press, 2024).
Hornsey, M. J., Fielding, K. S., Marshall, G. & Louis, W. R. Intergroup conflict over climate change: Problems and solutions. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 55, 243–250 (2025).
Thomas, E. F. et al. Vegetarian, vegan, activist, radical: using latent profile analysis to examine different forms of support for animal welfare. Group Process. Intergr. Relat. 22, 836–857 (2019).
Nyberg, D. & Wright, C. Confronting the climate crisis: fossil fuel hegemony and the need for decarbonization, degrowth, and democracy. J. Manag. Stud. 62, 3659–3676 (2025).
Winter, K., Hornsey, M. J., Pummerer, L. & Sassenberg, K. Public agreement with misinformation about wind farms. Nat. Commun. 15, 8888 (2024).
Hornsey, M. J., Chapman, C. M., Fielding, K. S., Louis, W. R. & Pearson, S. A political experiment may have extracted Australia from the climate wars. Nat. Clim. Change 12, 695–696 (2022).
Wright, C. & Nyberg, D. An inconvenient truth: how organizations translate climate change into business as usual. Acad. Manag. J. 60, 1633–1661 (2017).
Hornsey, M. J., Chapman, C. M. & Humphrey, J. E. Climate skepticism decreases when the planet gets hotter and conservative support wanes. Glob. Environ. Change 74, 102492 (2022).
Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J. & Swann, W. B. A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. J. Res. Personal. 37, 504–528 (2003).
Soutter, A. R. B., Bates, T. C. & Mõttus, R. Big Five and HEXACO personality traits, proenvironmental attitudes, and behaviors: a meta-analysis. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 15, 913–941 (2020).
Hornsey, M. J., Harris, E. A. & Fielding, K. S. Relationships among conspiratorial beliefs, conservatism and climate scepticism across nations. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 614–620 (2018).
Leviston, Z., Stanley, S. K. & Walker, I. Perceived support for climate policy in Australia: the asymmetrical influence of voting behaviour. J. Environ. Psychol. 100, 102488 (2024).
Choma, B., Hodson, G., Jagayat, A. & Hoffarth, M. R. Right-wing ideology as a predictor of collective action: A test across four political issue domains. Polit. Psychol. 41, 303–322 (2020).
Sharp, G. The politics of nonviolent action (The Albert Einstein Institution, 2020).
Beer, M. A. Civil resistance tactics in the 21st century (International Center on Nonviolent Conflict, 2021).
Patterson, J., S. & Mann, M. E. Public disapproval of disruptive climate change protests (University of Pennsylvania, Center for Science, Sustainability and the Media, 2022).
Leal, A. et al. Attitude moralization in the context of collective action: how participation in collective action may foster moralization over time. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 129, 1130–1150 (2025).
Swann, W. B. et al. What makes a group worth dying for? Identity fusion fosters perception of familial ties, promoting self-sacrifice. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 106, 912–926 (2014).
Rekker, R., Keijsers, L., Branje, S. & Meeus, W. Political attitudes in adolescence and emerging adulthood: developmental changes in mean level, polarization, rank-order stability, and correlates. J. Adolesc. 41, 136–147 (2015).
Bar-Tal, D., Chernyak-Hai, L., Schori, N. & Gundar, A. A sense of self-perceived collective victimhood in intractable conflicts. Int. Rev. Red. Cross 91, 229–258 (2009).
Schori-Eyal, N., Halperin, E. & Bar-Tal, D. Three layers of collective victimhood: effects of multileveled victimhood on intergroup conflicts in the Israeli–Arab context. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 44, 778–794 (2014).
Noor, M., Vollhardt, J. R., Mari, S. & Nadler, A. The social psychology of collective victimhood. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 47, 121–134 (2017).
Hameiri, B., Moore-Berg, S. L., Guillard, C., Falk, E. B. & Bruneau, E. Perceived victimhood shapes support for interpartisan political violence in the United States. Psychol. Violence 14, 207–217 (2024).
Noor, M., Shnabel, N., Halabi, S. & Nadler, A. When suffering begets suffering: the psychology of competitive victimhood between adversarial groups in violent conflicts. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 16, 351–374 (2012).
Gill, P., Horgan, J. & Deckert, P. Bombing alone: tracing the motivations and antecedent behaviors of lone-actor terrorists. J. Forensic Sci. 59, 425–435 (2014).
Corner, E. & Gill, P. A false dichotomy? Mental illness and lone-actor terrorism. Law Hum. Behav. 39, 23–34 (2015).
Bamberg, S. & Möser, G. Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: a new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour. J. Environ. Psychol. 27, 14–25 (2007).
Klöckner, C. A. A comprehensive model of the psychology of environmental behaviour—A meta-analysis. Glob. Environ. Change 23, 1028–1038 (2013).
Carvacho, H. et al. When social movements fail or succeed: social psychological consequences of a collective action’s outcome. Front. Psychol. ume 14, 2023 (2023).
Uluğ, ÖM., Lickel, B., Leidner, B. & Hirschberger, G. How do conflict narratives shape conflict- and peace-related outcomes among majority group members? The role of competitive victimhood in intractable conflicts. Group Process. Intergr. Relat. 24, 797–814 (2021).
Shuman, E., Goldenberg, A., Saguy, T., Halperin, E. & van Zomeren, M. When are social protests effective? Trends Cogn. Sci. 28, 252–263 (2024).
Acknowledgements
Participant compensation and salaries of some authors were supported by the Australian Research Council Discovery grant scheme, DP220101566, Australian Research Council Fellowship scheme, FT240100558, and Australian Research Council Laureate Fellowship, FL230100022. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Matthew Hornsey: conceptualisation; methodology; validation; formal analysis; writing—original draft; supervision; funding acquisition. Samuel Pearson: software; validation; formal analysis; visualisation; writing—review & editing. Susilo Wibisono: methodology; investigation; data curation; writing—review & editing; project administration. Emma Thomas: conceptualisation; methodology; validation; formal analysis; writing—review & editing; supervision; funding acquisition. Lucy Bird: validation; formal analysis; writing—review & editing. Jarren Nylund: resources; visualisation; writing—review & editing. Chris Bretter: formal analysis; visualisation; writing—review & editing. Janquel Acevedo: visualisation; writing—review & editing. Kelly Fielding: writing—review & editing; funding acquisition. Catherine Amiot: writing—review & editing; funding acquisition. Fathali Moghaddam: writing—review & editing; funding acquisition. Winnifred Louis: conceptualisation; methodology; writing—review & editing; supervision; funding acquisition.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review
Peer review information
Communications Psychology thanks Mete Sefa Uysal and the other anonymous reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Primary handling editor: Marike Schiffer. A peer review file is available.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Hornsey, M.J., Pearson, S., Wibisono, S. et al. Youth, personality and collective victimhood distinguish support for radical climate action. Commun Psychol (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44271-026-00420-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s44271-026-00420-z
