James Özden and Sam Glover at Social Change Lab wrote a literature review on protest outcomes[1] as part of a broader investigation[2] on protest effectiveness. The report covers multiple lines of evidence and addresses many relevant questions, but does not say much about the methodological quality of the research. So that's what I'm going to do today.
I reviewed the evidence on protest outcomes, focusing only on the highest-quality research, to answer two questions:
1. Do protests work?
2. Are Social Change Lab's conclusions consistent with the highest-quality evidence?
Here's what I found:
Do protests work? Highly likely (credence: 90%) in certain contexts, although it's unclear how well the results generalize. [More]
Are Social Change Lab's conclusions consistent with the highest-quality evidence? Yes—the report's core claims are well-supported, although it overstates the strength of some of the evidence. [More]
Cross-posted from my website.
Introduction
This article serves two purposes: First, it analyzes the evidence on protest outcomes. Second, it critically reviews the Social Change Lab literature review.
Social Change Lab is not the only group that has reviewed protest effectiveness. I was able to find four literature reviews:
1. Animal Charity Evaluators (2018), Protest Intervention Report.
2. Orazani et al. (2021), Social movement strategy (nonviolent vs. violent) and the garnering of third-party support: A meta-analysis.
3. Social Change Lab – Ozden & Glover (2022), Literature Review: Protest Outcomes.
4. Shuman et al. (2024), When Are Social Protests Effective?
The Animal Charity Evaluators review did not include many studies, and did not cite any natural experiments (only one had been published as of 2018).
Orazani et al. (2021)[3] is a nice meta-analysis—it finds that when you show people news articles about nonviolent protests, they are more likely to express support for the protesters' cause. But what people say in a lab setting mig
Hi,
having been passionate about the bigger picture for many years I discovered EA maybe five years ago. I attended a handful of events in Manchester and I was curious why something like Positive Psychology etc was not a core part of EA. After all, many of humanities problems are caused by humanity and can only be solved by humanity.
Six months ago I started work creating what I hope will be a global platform, there is a brief intro at potentialisation.com, to help people understand themselves and others better, learn and grow using that understanding and connect with other people more effectively - whether it be people round the corner to create a craft group because they are lonely or to connect with other would be global solution architects and supporters from around the globe that they have synergy with :-)
Hopefully the system help a few people be better in ways that give humanity a bit more chance of navigating the next few decades more successfully, or at the least be a bit less miserable as we head toward self destruction :-)
thanks,
jon
Best of luck with the project. It looks like there's a lot of different material in the works; I hope that whatever first tool you launch has clear benefits for the people who use it, and you can build out from an initial success.