A massive review of six decades of research provides evidence that people who participate in protests are driven more by social connections and political interest than by personal grievances or mistrust of the government. The meta-analysis, published in Science Advances, indicates that while millions of people might hold strong opinions about social issues, specific variables like organizational memberships and digital media use are what tend to translate that sentiment into physical action at marches and demonstrations.
Social movements and protests are primary ways people voice dissatisfaction and push for political change. Understanding what motivates a person to leave their home and join a march is a major focus in sociology and political science, a concept known as micromobilization. Micromobilization focuses on the individual decision to participate in collective action. A persistent puzzle in this field is the gap between having a grievance and actually protesting. Many people might feel wronged or agree with a movement’s goals, but only a fraction actually show up to a demonstration.
For example, a study covered by PsyPost in 2025 found that higher levels of partisan animosity toward an opposing political party reliably predicted a higher likelihood of protest participation, whereas strong identification with one’s own party had little effect. While that specific research measured affective polarization rather than the general political ideologies or institutional grievances evaluated in broader studies, it highlights the ongoing quest to pinpoint exactly what pushes a person from passive agreement to active engagement.
The research was conducted by Shelley Boulianne, a full professor and the R. Klein Research Chair in Communication Studies at Mount Royal University and a visiting professor at Lund University, alongside Jennifer Earl, chair and professor in the Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice at the University of Delaware. They focused strictly on physical marches and demonstrations, ensuring they were comparing similar types of actions rather than mixing in lower-effort activities like signing petitions or posting online.
“In 2017, I collected survey data about two protest events: the Women’s March and March for Science,” Boulianne explained. “I was looking for a way to organize this large body of literature to write about it succinctly.”
“Prior scholarship on micromobilization, or what predicts participation in social movements or specific protests, has not built on itself in the way that one might expect for such an absolutely fundamental question,” Earl told PsyPost. “After almost 50 years of studying this question in a focused way, divergence in methodologies and focus (are you explaining movement participation, participation in specific events, or agreement/motivation to participate) has meant that there are a large number of smaller conversations about micromobilization and a large number of theoretical approaches to micromobilization, but far less synthesis and stock-taking.”
The authors aimed to identify the factors that consistently separate those who act from those who stay home by looking specifically at surveys that included both protesters and non-protesters. They conducted a meta-analysis, which is a statistical technique that combines the results of many past studies to identify overarching trends. The researchers gathered 181 survey-based studies published between 1965 and 2023. These surveys included data from hundreds of thousands of respondents across various countries, though mostly from Western democracies.
The team analyzed more than 1,800 different statistical estimates from these surveys. They categorized the relationships between different personal characteristics and protest participation, noting whether each factor had a positive or negative association and whether the mathematical links were robust enough to be considered reliable.
“The symmetry between different lines of evidence was surprising,” Boulianne said. “When we wove together the qualitative interviews with the quantitative survey, we found a consistent storyline about who participates in protests.”
The analysis provides evidence that several factors consistently predict whether someone will attend a march or demonstration. A high level of general political interest is one of the strongest predictors. People who already pay attention to politics are much more likely to show up at protests. Political ideology also plays a large role, with individuals leaning to the left of the political spectrum consistently showing higher rates of protest participation in the reviewed data.
The findings are in line with research covered by PsyPost earlier this year, which found that higher political extremism on both the far-left and far-right was associated with a greater likelihood of participating in collective action across ideological movements. However, the current meta-analysis synthesized general population surveys regarding broad political ideology and march participation, rather than testing ideological extremism within specific protest movements.
Beyond internal beliefs, social and organizational ties are major drivers of protest attendance. Belonging to a voluntary association, such as a labor union or a community group, strongly increases a person’s likelihood of marching. The researchers suggest that these organizations might provide direct invitations to protest, or they might simply connect people to politically engaged social networks. In many cases, social embeddedness acts as a direct pathway to activism.
Digital and social media use also emerged as a consistent predictor of mobilization. People who regularly use digital platforms are more likely to protest, likely because social media functions as an efficient way to distribute information and mobilize social networks.
Relying on traditional media like television or print newspapers did not consistently predict protest behavior. The authors suggest that social media platforms are distinct because they combine logistical information about an event with direct social connections. “The role of social media in protest is to help identify and sustain these social connections,” Boulianne noted.
Demographic factors also shape who protests. The data indicate that younger people, individuals with higher levels of education, and those living in urban areas are more likely to attend demonstrations. The authors explain these demographic trends through concepts like biographical availability and supply and demand. Biographical availability refers to having the free time and a lack of restrictive obligations, which allows people, often younger individuals, to engage in time-consuming activism.
Meanwhile, urban environments offer a higher supply of protest events and organizational infrastructure. This high supply easily meets the demand of city residents who want to participate. Urban areas also reduce the physical costs and travel time required to join a march compared to rural areas.
“Scholars, media, and politicians make assumptions about who the protesters are and what motivated them to participate,” Boulianne told PsyPost. “The common explanation is that they are angry or frustrated people who bypass regular methods of political participation.”
However, the evidence does not show this emotion to be a consistent explanation of who shows up to these events. Interestingly, the researchers found weak or inconsistent support for the idea that personal grievances drive protest. Factors like low income, unemployment, dissatisfaction with personal finances, or a general distrust of government did not consistently predict who would march. Many surveys showed results that were not statistically significant when looking at these variables.
“I think many people get stuck on the issues – or what social movement scholars would call the grievances – because if you ask people why they participated, that is what they will say,” Earl explained. “But, if you compare people who did participate and people who did not, a lot of people who didn’t participate share the same concerns or grievances.”
This makes grievances a weak predictor of action, which Earl noted is “hard for a lot of people to swallow because they think it is either a precondition for participation (empirically, it’s not) or enough to generate support (empirically, it’s not).” This suggests that feeling deprived or angry about a situation is rarely enough to prompt action without the necessary social connections and political interest.
“Instead, the consistent predictors are political interest and social connections,” Boulianne said. “If one thinks of these people as groups of engaged citizens who want a voice, then the reaction to these protests might differ.”
“For example, the police might view protesters as community members demonstrating their democratic rights, rather than disrupters,” she continued. “Politicians might view these protesters as committed citizens who show up on election day, despite the time and effort required to vote. The media might view these protesters as well-connected members of the community, rather than loners or deviants.”
As with all research, there are some caveats to consider. The meta-analysis relies heavily on survey data from Western countries, particularly the United States and European nations. The dynamics of protest might look very different in authoritarian regimes or other parts of the world where demonstrating carries severe physical or legal risks.
The studies reviewed are observational, meaning they rely on people reporting their own behaviors and characteristics. This makes it difficult to completely untangle exactly how certain factors cause protest participation. For instance, digital media use is linked to protesting, but it is not immediately apparent whether social media usage directly prompts people to protest, or if politically active people just tend to use social media more to coordinate their efforts.
There are a few things to keep in mind regarding how certain ideas were measured. The review found that general dissatisfaction does not reliably predict protest, but this does not mean emotions are irrelevant. The authors suggest that future research could explore how sudden, shared grievances might act as a catalyst for people who are already socially connected, shifting the focus from personal deprivation to collective concern.
Additionally, the authors recommend that future surveys ask participants specifically about whether they received a direct invitation to protest. Being personally asked to attend by a friend or organization seems to be a potent motivator in smaller studies, yet it is rarely measured in standard, large-scale political surveys.
“If you want people to participate, specifically invite them to – it’s simple but very powerful,” Earl advised. “Don’t expect that convincing someone of your goals, concerns or arguments is the most important thing – some people participate without knowing much about the protest (especially when they are invited) and many who agree with you on the issues won’t translate that agreement into action.”
This gap in the literature highlights a need to update methodologies across the field. Earl pointed out “the divergence in how much some survey questions are asked, even if there is not great evidence for them, but how infrequently other questions are asked even though they have elicited really strong evidence when asked.”
To help address these gaps, Boulianne is expanding on the study’s framework. “I am writing a book about protest participation across the globe,” Boulianne said. “I compare the findings from this evidence synthesis article to findings from the World Values Survey (66 countries) and four-country survey data that I gathered in 2025.”
“We really hope that future survey research looks at this article and improves and changes the questions that are asked in response to the findings so that research on the topic continues to advance,” Earl concluded.
The study, “Most people who agree with you won’t protest predictors of marches and demonstrations from six decades of research,” was authored by Shelley Boulianne and Jennifer Earl.
Leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.