Do Radical Ideas Lead to Support for Radical Actions? Exploring the Connection Between Radical Environmentalist Beliefs, Support for Radical Protest Forms and Perceived Governmental Efficacy

Abstract

Radical environmental protests (REPs) have become more frequent and, in some contexts, more supported by the public. Amid ongoing climate change, biodiversity loss, government backsliding on environmental goals, and political polarization, REP is likely to grow, with implications for both social and environmental sustainability. This study investigates associations between REP, general pro-environmental attitudes and behaviours, more radical environmental beliefs such as anti-speciesism (AS), and perceptions of government efficacy. Using UK survey data from 2024–2025 (N = 1163), we assessed support for REP through established measures like the Nature Connectedness Scale and New Ecological Paradigm, alongside new scales measuring principled support for radical protest and perceived governmental efficacy. Moderated multiple regression analysis found that AS significantly predicts support for REP, even when controlling for general pro-environmental behaviour, but engagement in public environmental actions was an even stronger predictor. Perceived governmental efficacy did not moderate these relationships but was an independent positive predictor—indicating that support for REP is linked to political optimism, rather than disillusionment. These findings challenge assumptions that REP emerges from political disengagement, suggesting instead that it reflects a broader, hopeful commitment to environmental action in the face of global crisis.

1. Introduction

Radical environmental protest (REP) has become more visible in the UK and other democracies in the last decade, with an expanded tactical repertoire that includes both symbolic actions and disruptive—sometimes law-breaking—forms of non-violent direct action [1,2,3]. In this article, we use the term *radical protest forms* to refer to protest tactics that substantially disrupt everyday routines and/or target infrastructure or property, and that may involve civil disobedience. We explicitly exclude violence against persons, which is normatively rejected by most climate movements and treated as analytically distinct in the literature [4,5]. Recent work suggests that disruptive actions can shift attention and, under some conditions, increase support for more moderate climate organizations [6,7], while other studies highlight risks of backlash and polarization [8]. As gaps between climate/biodiversity targets and implemented policy continue to grow, and numbers of climate protest actions grow [9] so REPs are anticipated to increase further [10,11,12]. Hence the importance of understanding which beliefs and behaviours underpin public support for disruptive environmental protests.

One scientific response to this situation has been to examine the impact of radical protest forms on public support for environmental causes. Do radical protests tend to broaden public support (see, e.g., [6,7]), or rather to alienate the wider public (see, e.g., [8])? Or does the effect largely depend on context (see, e.g., [13])? Another important avenue of enquiry has been to examine the role of emotions in support and mobilization for such protests (see, e.g., [13,14,15,16]).

To date, however, less attention has been paid to the underlying beliefs which support radical protest for environmental causes (though see [17,18]). In particular, work on how perceptions of human–nature relations impact support for radical protest has been lacking. To address this, our survey was designed to identify beliefs associated with support for radical protest and to examine the relationship between them, from perceptions of self and governmental efficacy [19] to individuals’ sense of their relationship to nature—and hence to address the question of whether radical ideas (such as anti-speciesism—belief in the equality of species) lead to radical actions.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Conceptualizing ‘Radical’ Environmental Protest

Environmental protest encompasses a broad spectrum of collective actions through which individuals and groups seek to influence environmental governance, public opinion, and institutional practices. These actions range from institutionalized and legally sanctioned activities—such as petition signing, lobbying, or authorized demonstrations—to more confrontational, non-normative or disruptive, or law-breaking forms of contention (e.g., civil disobedience, obstruction, sabotage) [20,21]. Within this spectrum, the notion of radical environmental protest remains contested and analytically complex, yet central to contemporary debates on environmental activism.

In the environmental domain, radical protest is most often defined not by ideological extremism or violence against persons, but by the tactics employed and their relationship to prevailing legal and institutional norms. Accordingly, radical environmental protest refers here to non-violent protest tactics that substantially disrupt everyday routines and/or deliberately challenge existing legal or institutional frameworks [5,22]. This definition aligns with a substantial body of literature that analytically and normatively distinguishes non-violent disruptive protest from violence against persons, the latter being rare and widely rejected within environmental movements [4].

Whether an action is considered “radical,” however, is not an intrinsic property of the action itself but is contingent upon social, political, and temporal contexts. What counts as radical is shaped by legal regimes, dominant cultural norms, media framings, and the standpoint of observers, including authorities, the public, and movement participants themselves [23,24]. Actions initially framed as extreme or unacceptable—such as mass civil disobedience or infrastructure blockades—have historically become normalized components of environmental and social movements over time [25]. This relativity raises fundamental analytical questions: who defines radicalism, on what basis, and with what consequences for political legitimacy and public support?

A further important distinction concerns support for radical protest as opposed to participation in radical protest. Building on the Value–Belief–Norm framework, Stern et al. [26,27] emphasized that individuals may endorse or morally support social movements without engaging directly in activist behaviour. Subsequent research has adopted this distinction to examine public attitudes toward contentious political action, showing that support represents an intermediate position between private environmental concern and direct activist involvement [17,28]. Conceptually, support for radical environmental protest reflects attitudinal alignment and normative approval rather than direct behavioural commitment, and has therefore been treated in the literature as analytically distinct from activist participation [26,29,30].

Recent empirical work suggests that radical environmental protest is likely to remain a salient and possibly expanding feature of environmental politics. Longitudinal analyses document disruptive climate activism across multiple democracies over the past decade [1,5], while comparative studies highlight how perceived inadequacy of governmental responses to climate change and biodiversity loss fuels public openness to more confrontational tactics [2,7]. Experimental and observational research further suggests that radical protest can have significant social and political consequences, including shaping media agendas, influencing public attitudes, and increasing support for more moderate environmental organizations through “radical flank” effects [6,7]. These dynamics suggest that radical protest may have broader implications for social sustainability, by shaping democratic participation and perceptions of political legitimacy, and for environmental sustainability, insofar as it can influence policy agendas and public support through indirect pathways [6,31,32,33,34]. For example, mass civil disobedience and infrastructure blockades have been shown to increase media attention and public debate around climate governance, thereby altering the terms under which environmental issues are discussed politically [32,33]. Furthermore, experimental and longitudinal studies demonstrate that exposure to radical climate protests can increase support for moderate environmental actors and policy demands, even when the radical tactics themselves remain controversial [6,32]. Together, these findings suggest that radical environmental protest may influence sustainability outcomes not through immediate policy change, but through longer-term effects on public opinion, political discourse, and institutional responsiveness.

Despite growing empirical interest in studying the support for radical protest, substantial gaps remain regarding the belief-based foundations of public support for radical environmental protest. Existing research has predominantly focused on emotional processes (e.g., moral emotions, anger, hope), perceived injustice and grievance, or the strategic effectiveness of protest tactics in shaping public opinion [6,7,13,21]. By contrast, fewer studies have examined how more fundamental worldviews and belief systems—particularly conceptions of the human–nature relationship and moral boundaries between humans and non-human nature—may orient individuals toward endorsing radical or law-challenging forms of environmental contention [17,33]. Clarifying these belief-based foundations is essential for understanding why some individuals view radical environmental protest as a legitimate and necessary response to environmental crises, while others reject such tactics despite sharing environmental concerns.

2.2. Human–Nature Relationship and Anti-Speciesism

Debates about how humans conceptualize their relationship with the natural world are long-standing in environmental psychology and environmental sociology [34,35]. A central distinction concerns whether nature is understood primarily in instrumental terms, as a resource for human use, or as possessing intrinsic value and moral standing independent of human interests. Closely related are debates about human exceptionalism—the belief that humans are fundamentally separate from, and in some way exempt from, the constraints governing ecological systems [36]. Dunlap and Van Liere’s New Environmental Paradigm (NEP) articulates an ecological worldview that rejects human exemptionalism and emphasizes the embeddedness of humans within biophysical systems. While not developed as a theory of moral equality between species, this framework challenges anthropocentric assumptions and provides conceptual foundations that overlap with, but do not fully encompass, anti-speciesist positions [36].

Anti-speciesism—understood here as the view that humans are not morally privileged over other species and are embedded within ecological systems—captures a radical de-centering of human interests [33,37]. We expect such beliefs to provide a moral rationale for endorsing disruptive tactics in defence of non-human life and ecological systems. Although pro-environmental worldviews and nature connectedness have been linked to many pro-environmental attitudes and behaviours [36,38], studies examining whether anti-speciesist beliefs are associated specifically with support for disruptive protest, beyond general pro-environmental engagement, are lacking.

Early empirical research demonstrated that these orientations are not merely philosophical positions but are systematically related to environmental attitudes, policy preferences, and behavioural tendencies. Thompson and Barton [35] distinguished between anthropocentric and ecocentric environmental concern, showing that these orientations predict different forms of environmental engagement. Wohlwill [34] highlighted how perceptions of nature are shaped by developmental, cultural, and experiential factors, while Steg and Sievers [39] demonstrated that value orientations toward nature influence individuals’ willingness to accept environmental policies involving personal or societal costs.

More recent scholarship has expanded these frameworks by incorporating relational, emotional, and identity-based dimensions of the human–nature relationship. Research on connectedness to nature emphasizes feelings of belonging, moral inclusion, and identification with the natural world as important motivational foundations for environmental concern and action [38,40]. In parallel, integrative and pluralistic approaches argue that contemporary environmental challenges require moving beyond simple anthropocentric–ecocentric dichotomies, combining scientific, cultural, ethical, and experiential ways of understanding human–nature relations [41,42].

Within this broader landscape, anti-speciesism represents a particularly radical moral position. Anti-speciesism rejects the moral privileging of humans over other species and asserts that non-human beings possess intrinsic value independent of their utility to humans [33,37]. This perspective challenges anthropocentric assumptions embedded in modern legal, economic, and political institutions, including notions of unlimited resource exploitation and human moral exceptionalism.

While anti-speciesism has been extensively discussed within animal ethics and political theory, its relevance for environmental activism and support for contentious action has received comparatively limited empirical attention. Existing research on environmental worldviews has tended to focus on broad ecological orientations, leaving open the question of whether rejecting human moral exceptionalism is associated with greater support for radical or law-challenging forms of environmental protest.

Together, this literature highlights that environmental worldviews reflect deeply rooted beliefs about moral boundaries, responsibility, and human embeddedness within ecological systems. However, while these beliefs have been extensively linked to general pro-environmental attitudes and behaviours, their implications for support of contentious or disruptive environmental action remain less clearly understood.

2.3. Private and Public Pro-Environmental Behaviour

Pro-environmental behaviour is widely recognized as a multidimensional construct encompassing actions undertaken in different social spheres [27]. A foundational distinction separates private-sphere behaviours, such as recycling, reducing consumption, or conserving energy, from public-sphere behaviours, including political participation, collective action, and support for environmental organizations [43].

Private pro-environmental behaviours are typically low in visibility and political confrontation and are often motivated by personal norms, habits, and perceived consumer responsibility. Public pro-environmental behaviours, by contrast, involve engagement with collective decision-making processes and are more directly oriented toward social and political change. Empirical studies consistently show that these two domains are only moderately correlated, suggesting that engagement in one does not automatically translate into engagement in the other [44].

This distinction is particularly relevant when considering support for radical environmental protest. Public forms of engagement expose individuals to political discourses, movement networks, and normative debates about legitimacy and urgency, potentially increasing familiarity with and acceptance of disruptive protest repertoires [28]. By contrast, the relationship between private behaviour and support for contentious action remains theoretically ambiguous. Some studies suggest positive spillover effects [45], while others highlight substitution or moral licensing processes that may dampen support for more confrontational strategies [44,46]. Empirical findings remain mixed.

2.4. Efficacy Beliefs and Support for Contentious Action

Beliefs about one’s capacity to influence political outcomes—commonly referred to as efficacy beliefs—are central to theories of political participation and collective action [47]. Classical distinctions differentiate between internal efficacy, referring to confidence in one’s own abilities, and external efficacy, referring to perceptions of institutional responsiveness. In environmental contexts, these distinctions have been extended to include perceptions of collective and governmental efficacy [19].

Research on contentious action has often assumed that support for radical protest emerges primarily from frustration, alienation, or perceived institutional failure [21]. However, growing evidence challenges this assumption. Studies indicate that individuals who perceive themselves as politically competent and who view institutions as at least partially responsive may be more willing to endorse disruptive tactics when such actions are perceived as effective or strategically justified [13,19].

Efficacy beliefs may therefore play a dual role: low perceived responsiveness can motivate protest by highlighting institutional inadequacy, while high perceived capacity and responsiveness may render disruptive protest meaningful rather than futile. The direction and conditions of this relationship remain theoretically contested and empirically underexplored.

2.5. Summary and Open Question

Taken together, the literature highlights several unresolved questions. While research has examined the effects of disruptive environmental protest on public opinion and policy attention, and the emotional and grievance-based drivers of mobilization, less is known about the belief-based foundations that legitimize support for radical protest among broader publics. In particular, open questions remain regarding how human–nature worldviews and anti-speciesist beliefs relate to support for contentious action, how private and public pro-environmental behaviourbehaviours are differentially associated with such support, and under what conditions efficacy beliefs encourage rather than suppress endorsement of radical environmental protest. Addressing these gaps is essential for advancing understanding of the social foundations of contemporary environmental contention.

3. Aims and Hypothesis Development

The aim of this study is to examine how belief-based orientations and efficacy perceptions are associated with principled support for radical environmental protest forms (PSREP–measured using a novel 3-item scale). Building on the literature reviewed in Section 2, the study focuses on (a) private and public pro-environmental behaviours, (b) anti-speciesism as a worldview reflecting a de-centering of human moral privilege, and (c) perceived governmental efficacy as a political opportunity belief.

Given the cross-sectional research design and the use of bivariate correlation analyses and regression models, research questions and hypotheses are formulated to distinguish clearly between (i) associational relationships and (ii) predictive relationships, in line with the statistical techniques employed.

RQ1:

How is support for radical environmental protest related to private and public pro-environmental behaviour?

The literature suggests that public pro-environmental engagement is more closely connected to contentious environmental action than private, lifestyle-oriented behaviours, although empirical findings remain mixed [27,28,43].

We therefore anticipate that both public and private pro-environmental engagement will be positively related to support for radical environmental protest, but that the association with public pro-environmental behaviours will be stronger.

H1a. 

PSREP is positively correlated with private pro-environmental behaviour (PEB-PR).

H1b. 

PSREP is positively correlated with public pro-environmental behaviour (PEB-PU).

H1c. 

PSREP is more positively correlated with public pro-environmental behaviour than with private pro-environmental behaviour.

To examine whether these associations persist when both forms of behaviour are considered simultaneously, a regression-based analysis is conducted.

H1d. 

In a regression model including private and public pro-environmental behaviour, both forms of behaviour are expected to show positive associations with PSREP.

RQ2:

How are anti-speciesism beliefs related to support for radical environmental protest?

Anti-speciesism has been theorized as a worldview that challenges anthropocentric moral boundaries and may legitimize disruptive action aimed at protecting non-human life and ecological systems.

H2a. 

Anti-speciesism beliefs are positively correlated with PSREP.

To assess whether anti-speciesism is associated with PSREP beyond general pro-environmental engagement, a regression-based analysis is employed.

H2b. 

In a regression model controlling for private and public pro-environmental behaviour, anti-speciesism beliefs are expected to show a positive association with PSREP.

RQ3:

How is perceived governmental efficacy related to support for radical environmental protest?

Efficacy beliefs are central to theories of political participation and collective action, but their relationship with support for disruptive protest remains theoretically ambiguous [19,21].

H3a. 

Perceived governmental efficacy (PGE) is positively correlated with PSREP.

H3b. 

In a regression model controlling for anti-speciesism and pro-environmental behaviours, PGE will show a positive unique association with PSREP.

RQ4:

Does perceived governmental efficacy moderate the relationship between anti-speciesism and support for radical environmental protest?

The literature suggests that belief-based motivations may translate more strongly into political support when individuals perceive opportunities for influence and institutional responsiveness [19].

H4. 

Perceived governmental efficacy moderates the relationship between anti-speciesism and PSREP, such that the positive association between anti-speciesism beliefs and PSREP is stronger at higher levels of perceived governmental efficacy.

4. Materials and Methods

This section describes the study design, sampling procedure, measures, and analytical strategy.

4.1. Participants and Design

We conducted a cross-sectional online survey between late December 2024 and early January 2025 in the UK. Data collection was administered by Bilendi—an established online survey research company headquartered in Paris with operations across Europe and the Americas —and the research team did not have direct contact with participants. Quota sampling ensured representativeness of the national population with respect to region, age, gender and educational background. Participants were rewarded with shopping tokens. The survey contained more items than those used in this study.

The study sample consisted of 1163 participants (49.6% cisgender women, 50.4% cisgender men), with an average age of 43.47 (Standard deviation (SD) = 14.26) and a range from 18 to 74 years. Their residential distribution was as follows: 19.4% central large city, 22.4% suburban large city, 8.9 small city, 33.9% town and 15.1% village or more rural and 0.3% other residential settings. Educational attainment: 29.4% low educational qualifications (≤4 GCSEs), 34.7% medium qualifications (≥5 GCSEs or apprenticeship), and 35.3% bachelor’s or higher, with 0.6% in secondary or further education.

4.2. Materials

To measure our variables, we composed scales consisting of items extracted from well-established scales complemented with new items developed to measure our concepts of interest. All our scales were tested for internal reliability and will be presented in the following Section Variables and Their Measurements. Unless otherwise indicated, the items were measured on a six-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree. We employed an even-numbered response scale to discourage central-tendency responding, which has been shown to occur frequently in online panel surveys, while still allowing respondents to indicate varying degrees of agreement across the scale [48,49]. Although no neutral midpoint was provided, respondents could express relatively low endorsement without selecting extreme categories. The dichotomous checklist used to assess private pro-environmental behaviour followed the Eurobarometer design, enabling broad comparability with European population surveys.

Variables and Their Measurements

-

Anti-speciesism (AS)

Anti-speciesism was operationalized as a four-item scale capturing two core dimensions discussed in the literature: (a) moral standing of non-human life and (b) rejection of human exceptionalism/perceived human embeddedness in nature.

Two items were drawn verbatim from the revised New Environmental Paradigm (NEP) framework [36], which conceptualizes an ecological worldview emphasizing ecological limits and rejection of human exemption from natural laws. Two additional items were drawn verbatim from the Connectedness to Nature Scale (CNS) [40], which captures affective and identity-based aspects of human–nature relationships.

Items were as follows:

• Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist (NEP).
• Despite our distinctive characteristics, humans are still subject to the laws of nature (NEP).
• My connection to nature and the environment is a part of my spirituality (CNS).
• I feel very connected to all living things and the earth (CNS).

Items were averaged to form a composite index. Higher scores indicate stronger anti-speciesism beliefs.

-

Private Pro-environmental Behaviour (PEB-PR)

Engagement in pro-environmental private behaviour was measured by presenting a list of 10 environmental behaviours in the private sphere (example: I try to reduce my waste and regularly separate it for recycling) to all of which the participants could indicate whether these actions apply to them with yes or no. This follows the Eurobarometer design [50,51] to enable broad comparison with European publics.

-

Public Pro-environmental Behaviour (PEB-PU)

Engagement in pro-environmental public behaviour was assessed by presenting a list of seven environmental behaviours in the public or political sphere (example: Sign a petition), to all of which the participants could indicate how likely they see themselves to be performing these actions in the next year. For this, we selected items from Extinction Rebellion’s survey related to their campaign in London in April 2019 [2].

-

Perceived Governmental Efficacy (PGE)

Perceived governmental efficacy was investigated using a novel ad hoc scale composed of 5 items designed to capture individuals’ sense of agency in relation to local government: ‘My local government provides opportunities for residents to contribute to decisions about the environment’; ‘I feel my opinions on environmental issues are heard and valued by my local government’; ‘I understand how decisions about new developments are made by the local government’; ‘I have the skills needed to influence decisions about environmental policies in my local government’; ‘I feel confident speaking up about environmental issues in public or with officials’. While the first two items were selected to assess external governmental efficacy (local government openness and responsiveness), the last three items aimed to measure internal governmental efficacy (individuals’ confidence their capacity to act effectively in the local government environment), resonating with the synthetic literature review by Meijers et al. [19]. Exploratory factor analysis indicated a unidimensional structure in this sample; items were therefore averaged into a single index.

-

Principled Support for Radical Environmental Protest (PSREP)

Support for radical protest forms was measured with a novel three-item ad hoc scale, developed to capture normative endorsement of disruptive direct action and civil disobedience under conditions of perceived institutional inadequacy.

Items were as follows:

• If governments will not listen, it becomes necessary to use direct action to protect the environment.
• Ultimately, protecting future generations is more important than obeying the law.
• Many current laws do not reflect environmental realities, so breaking them is justified.

These items were chosen to reflect reasons given for supporting REP in our fieldwork experience and literature review.

Items were averaged, with higher scores indicating stronger principled support for radical environmental protest. This scale is treated explicitly as an ad hoc measure, designed to capture normative support rather than willingness to personally engage in illegal action.

4.3. Analysis

We conducted descriptive analyses for the collected variables including mean (M), standard deviation (SD) as well as skewness and kurtosis to assess distributional properties and verify assumptions for inferential analyses.

To examine the dimensionality of the multi-item measures, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted. The analysis aimed to verify that items loaded on their intended constructs and to assess the empirical distinction between the key variables.

Internal consistency was evaluated for all multi-item scales using Cronbach’s alpha and for dichotomous items using Kuder–Richardson Formula 20 (KR-20).

To address the research questions and hypotheses, bivariate correlation analyses were used to examine associations among variables, followed by regression analyses to assess predictive relationships when multiple factors were considered simultaneously. Moderation was tested by including interaction terms between anti-speciesism and perceived governmental efficacy.

In the following regression equation, $\widehat{\mathrm{P}\mathrm{S}\mathrm{R}\mathrm{E}\mathrm{P}}$ is the predicted dependent variable, which is principled support for radical environmental protest, while ${\mathrm{X}}_{\mathrm{i}}$ are the predictors we are interested in studying the effect of them on PSREP and ${\mathrm{B}}_{\mathrm{i}}$ are the regression coefficients. ${\mathrm{B}}_0$ is the intercept that is shown by Constant in Results: Hierarchical Regression Analysis.

$$\widehat{\mathrm{P}\mathrm{S}\mathrm{R}\mathrm{E}\mathrm{P}}={\mathrm{B}}_0+{\sum }_{\mathrm{i}=0}^{\mathrm{n}}{\mathrm{B}}_{\mathrm{i}}\times {\mathrm{X}}_{\mathrm{i}}$$

${\mathrm{R}}^2$ (coefficient of determination) and $∆{\mathrm{R}}^2$ are reported to measure the goodness-of-fit of the regression model and the improvement in model fit.

All analyses were conducted using SPSS 31.0 [52] and Python 3.13. Standardized regression coefficients (β), standard errors (SE), 95% confidence intervals (CI), and changes in explained variance (ΔR²) are reported.

5. Results

This section presents the study’s findings, beginning with the assessment of measurement properties, followed by descriptive statistics of the collected variables, and inferential analyses structured around the study’s hypotheses.

5.1. Items and Scale Analysis

Prior to hypothesis testing, the internal consistency of the multi-item scales was assessed. Reliability coefficients for all scales are reported in

Table 1. Descriptive results of the study variables.

Variable	Min	Max	Mean (SD)	Median	α or KR-20	Skewness	Kurtosis	Confidential Interval (CI)
AS	1.00	6.00	4.36 (0.88)	4.25	0.65	−0.298	0.30	4.31–4.41
PEB-PR	0.00	1.00	0.37 (0.23)	0.400	0.67	0.351	−0.30	0.36–0.39
PEB-PU	1.00	6.00	3.24 (1.21)	3.29	0.90	−0.07	−0.59	3.17–3.31
PGE	1.00	6.00	3.23 (1.13)	3.20	0.90	0.25	−0.39	3.17–3.31
PSREP	1.00	6.00	3.37 (1.17)	3.33	0.76	−0.04	−0.29	3.30–3.43

Note: All scales were measured on a six-point Likert scale except PEB-PR, which was measured dichotomously (yes/no) in the form of a list of behaviours.

. Internal consistency was acceptable across all measures including the novel PGE and PSREP scales (Cronbach’s α range = 0.65–0.90; KR-20 = 0.67 for dichotomous private behaviour items), indicating satisfactory reliability. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted on the set of multi-item variables to examine their dimensionality and to assess whether items loaded on distinct constructs. The results indicated that items loaded primarily on their intended factors, with no substantial cross-loadings observed. Taken together, these findings provide preliminary support for the distinctiveness of the measured constructs.

5.2. Descriptive Statistics

Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics of all variables. As displayed in the table, all variables had approximated normal distribution (|skew| < 1; |kurtosis| < 1) and therefore met these assumptions for the hypothesis testing. Due to space, we will not report in detail about further assumption tests, but preliminary testing confirmed linearity, absence of multicollinearity, normality of residuals, homoscedascity and independence of errors.

Dichotomous private pro-environmental behaviour index showed mild positive skew, which is expected given its binary format. Notably, all variables have means above the midpoint, suggesting moderate to positive responses across the board. Specifically, anti-speciesism shows the highest means, accompanied by low standard deviations, indicating relatively consistent and strong support for this attitude.

5.3. Hypothesis Testing

To assess the link between the support for radical protest forms and other pro-environmental behaviour we investigated the correlation between them.

Table 2. Correlation matrix of the study variables.

Variable	1 AS	2 PEB-PR	3 PEB-PU	4 PGE	5 PSREP
1 AS
2 PEB-PR	0.24 **
3 PEB-PU	0.49 **	0.27 **
4 PGE	0.45 **	0.04	0.60 **
5 PSREP	0.35 **	0.02	0.49 **	0.40 **

Note: ** indicates correlation is significant on the 0.01 level (two-tailed). Bold values refer to Hypothesis 1 (there will be a positive relationship between support for radical protest forms and other pro-environmental behaviours).

reports bivariate correlations among the study variables. PSREP was positively correlated with public pro-environmental behaviour (r = 0.49, p < 0.01), supporting H1b, but was not significantly correlated with private pro-environmental behaviour (r = 0.02, n.s.), so H1a was not supported. Private and public behaviours were positively related (r = 0.27, p < 0.01), suggesting partial behavioural consistency across domains.

While the hypothesis focused on the link between the pro-environmental behaviours, we present correlations of all study variables in the correlation matrix in Table 2 for comprehension. It is also observed that PSREP was positively correlated with anti-speciesism (r = 0.35, p < 0.01) and perceived governmental efficacy (r = 0.40, p < 0.01). These findings support H2a and H3a.

Hierarchical Regression Analysis

A hierarchical multiple regression analysis was conducted to examine whether public and private pro-environmental behaviours predicted support for radical environmental protest (PSREP), and whether anti-speciesism (AS) explained additional variance beyond these behaviours (

Table 3. Hierarchical regression results for support for radical protest forms.

Variables	B	95% CI B		SE B	β	R2	ΔR2
		LL	UL
Step 1						0.25	0.25 ***
Constant	1.98	1.80	2.15	0.09
PEB-PR	−0.64	−0.90	−0.38	0.13	−0.13 ***
PEB-PU	0.50	0.46	0.55	0.03	0.52 ***
Step 2						0.28	0.02 ***
Constant	1.27	0.98	0.16	0.15
PEB-PR	−0.89	−0.16	−0.61	−0.14	−0.18 ***
PEB-PU	0.44	0.39	0.50	0.03	0.46 ***
AS	0.228	0.15	0.30	0.03	0.17 ***

Note. *** indicates significance on the p < 0.001 level. B shows the regression coefficients related to each dependent predicator, SE B is the standard error for each coefficient, and finally β is the standardized coefficient (no intercept is included).

).

In Step 1, private (PEB-PR) and public (PEB-PU) pro-environmental behaviours significantly predicted PSREP, explaining approximately 25% of the variance (ΔR² = 0.25, p < 0.001). Public pro-environmental behaviour emerged as a strong positive predictor (β ≈ 0.52, p < 0.001), whereas private pro-environmental behaviour showed a small negative association (β ≈ −0.13, p < 0.001). The standardized coefficients indicate that public pro-environmental behaviour has a substantially larger effect size relative to private behaviour.

In Step 2, anti-speciesism (AS) was added to the model and significantly improved model fit (ΔR² ≈ 0.02, p < 0.001), bringing the total explained variance to approximately 28% (R² ≈ 0.28). AS was positively associated with support for radical protest, indicating that individuals with stronger anti-speciesist beliefs are more likely to support radical environmental actions, even after accounting for pro-environmental behaviours. This supports the hypothesis H2b.

Overall, public pro-environmental behaviour was the strongest predictor in the model (β = 0.46), followed by anti-speciesism (β = 0.17), while private behaviour showed a negative effect. This pattern should be interpreted cautiously, particularly given differences in measurement format (dichotomous checklist vs. Likert-type scale) and the cross-sectional design. Substantively, the negative coefficient is consistent with research on behavioural spillover and moral licensing processes [46], although causal claims cannot be inferred.

To further examination, perceived governmental efficacy (PGE) was integrated as an additional predictor in the hierarchical regression model (Step 1 in

Table 4. Integration of perceived governmental efficacy as a predictor and moderator.

Variables	B	95% CI B		SE B	β	R2	ΔR2
		LL	UL
Step 1						0.29	0.01
Constant	2.51	2.29	2.74	0.11
PEB-PR	−0.79	−0.15	−5.57	0.14	−0.16
PEB-PU	0.36	0.29	0.42	0.03	0.37 ***
AS	0.23	0.15	0.30	0.04	0.17 ***
PGE	0.15	0.09	0.21	0.03	0.15 ***
Step 2						0.29	0.00
Constant	2.51	2.29	2.73	0.11
PEB-PR	−0.79	−0.01	−0.51	0.14	−0.16
PEB-PU	0.36	0.29	0.42	0.03	0.37 ***
AS	0.23	0.17	5.90	0.04	0.17 ***
PGE	0.14	0.08	0.20	0.03	0.14 ***
AS × PGE	0.02	−0.03	0.06	0.02	0.02

Note. *** indicates significance on the p < 0.001 level. Step 1 refers to Hypothesis 3 (individuals with lower perceived governmental efficacy will more likely have principled support for radical environmental protest), and step 2 tested Hypothesis 4 (perceived governmental has a positive moderating effect on the relationship between anti-speciesism and support for radical protest forms such that higher perceived efficacy will strengthen the association).

). The inclusion of PGE resulted in a modest increase in explained variance compared to the previous model (ΔR² ≈ 0.01), indicating incremental predictive value beyond anti-speciesism and behavioural measures. Results showed that perceived governmental efficacy functioned as a positive significant predictor for the support of radical protest forms after accounting for anti-speciesism and other pro-environmental behaviours (β = 0.15, p < 0.001), indicating that individuals reporting higher perceived governmental efficacy expressed stronger principled support for radical protest, even after controlling for ideological orientation and behavioural engagement. This finding confirmed our hypothesis, based on the logic that individuals who believe they are able to act in the public sphere and the government may respond positively are more likely to support radical environmental protest, contrary to a theoretical expectation that support for radical action springs from disillusionment and alienation from the mainstream [21]. Public pro-environmental behaviour remained the strongest predictor (β = 0.37, p < 0.001), followed by anti-speciesism (β = 0.17, p < 0.001). Interestingly, we find that private pro-environmental behaviours are not significantly associated with principled support for radical environmental protest.

To test Hypothesis 4, the interaction term between anti-speciesism and perceived governmental efficacy (AS × PGE) was entered in Step 2 (Table 4). The interaction term showed no significance (β = 0.02), which indicated that perceived governmental efficacy had no moderating effect on the relationship between anti-speciesism and support for radical protest forms. Accordingly, H4 was not supported. PGE functions as an independent additive predictor rather than a conditional moderator.

Furthermore, it can be observed in Table 4 that private pro-environmental behaviour was non-significant in the final model.

5.4. Summary

In summary, results showed that anti-speciesism predicted support for radical protest forms, also when accounting for other pro-environmental behaviours, although public pro-environmental behaviour is an even stronger predictor. In contrast, private pro-environmental behaviour was a non-significant predictor in the final model. These findings indicate that the likelihood of a person’s support for radical protest forms increases most strongly when the person is already engaged in public activism compared to the lesser though significant role of anti-speciesism beliefs. The role of private pro-environmental behaviour was weaker and varied in valence and significance across models.

Perceived governmental efficacy also proved to be a positive predictor. This suggests that people with higher belief in their own capability to influence political processes and in the responsiveness of their local government are more likely to support REPs.

6. Discussion

This study examined correlates of principled support for disruptive (potentially breaking but non-violent) environmental protest (PSREP) in the UK, using a novel 3-item scale. Building on debates about ecological worldviews, anti-speciesism, public versus private pro-environmental behaviour, and governmental efficacy, we tested whether anti-speciesism and perceived governmental efficacy are associated with support for disruptive protest beyond more general behavioural engagement.

Given the cross-sectional and partly exploratory nature of the design, the findings should be interpreted as patterns of association rather than evidence of causal relationships. The results offer indications of potentially meaningful relationships that warrant further investigation through longitudinal or experimental research.

6.1. RQ1: Public and Private Pro-Environmental Behaviour

RQ1 examined whether PSREP is associated with private and public pro-environmental behaviour, and whether these domains differ in their relationship with support for disruptive protest.

Only public environmental actions are significantly correlated with higher principled support for disruptive protest (0.49, see Table 2). Further differences emerged in multivariate analyses. When both behavioural domains were considered simultaneously, public pro-environmental behaviour showed a more robust positive association with PSREP, whereas the association for private behaviour was weaker and, in some models, negative. Public pro-environmental behaviour emerges with a central role across the analyses. It is the variable most strongly associated with support for radical protest, stronger even than perceived governmental efficacy (0.4) and anti-speciesism (0.26).

This pattern suggests that private and public environmental behaviours do not operate equivalently in relation to protest endorsement. One possibility as to why this is the case is a ‘foot-in-the-door’ dynamic, i.e., engaging in such behaviour—signing a petition, demonstrations, organizational involvement, etc.—provides exposure to discourses and virtual or physical contact with others in the environmental movement who advocate and indeed engage in such actions, and hence dispose the individual to accept further public environmentally motivated action as normal. Public environmental behaviour may thus provide a socialization pathway towards normalization of radical action repertoires, as well as radical discourses—such as anti-speciesism. Conversely, the negative association between private behaviour and PSREP in some multivariate models may reflect moral licensing or domain-specific spillover, where private actions satisfy moral goals for some individuals and reduce support for disruptive collective action [46]. These mechanisms are speculative and would benefit from experimental or panel designs.

Importantly, these interpretations remain tentative. It is equally plausible that the causation works the other way around, so individuals who already endorse a broad range of environmental action—including disruptive tactics—are more likely to engage publicly. Longitudinal data would be needed to test such socialization mechanisms, and the present data do not allow conclusions regarding directionality.

Taken together, the findings suggest that support for disruptive protest is more closely associated with politically oriented environmental engagement than with private lifestyle practices, although causal pathways cannot be established.

6.2. RQ2: Anti-Speciesism and Moral Commitments

RQ2 examined whether anti-speciesism is associated with PSREP and whether this association persists beyond behavioural engagement.

Anti-speciesism was positively associated with PSREP and retained this association when private and public behaviours were statistically controlled. This indicates that moral commitments concerning the human–nature relationship are empirically linked to the endorsement of disruptive protest beyond levels of behavioural participation.

The findings do not establish that anti-speciesism leads to support for disruptive protest. Rather, they suggest that moral boundary expansion and protest endorsement co-occur within this sample. It remains possible that public engagement reinforces anti-speciesist views, that anti-speciesism motivates engagement, or that both reflect broader ideological orientations. Thus, anti-speciesism may represent a distinct normative dimension within the broader constellation of environmental political attitudes.

6.3. RQ3: Perceived Governmental Efficacy

RQ3 addressed whether perceived governmental efficacy (PGE) is associated with PSREP.

We found perceived governmental efficacy (PGE) to be a positive predictor of support for radical protest forms. Participants who believed that citizens can influence governmental decision-making and can be heard in the governmental sphere also tended to report higher principled support for disruptive protest tactics. This finding suggests that support for disruptive environmental protest does not necessarily emerge from feelings of political powerlessness. Instead, it suggests that individuals who perceive the political system as responsive or influenceable are more likely to consider disruptive protest to be a legitimate or meaningful form of political action because they believe such protests can result in meaningful change. This challenges accounts which see radical activism as springing from disillusionment and disengagement from mainstream society [21], and which may contribute to media representations of environmental activists as troublemakers or even terrorists; contrary to these accounts, this finding suggests that support for radical action springs from hope that change is possible rather than despair or disconnection.

Importantly, however, the association between PGE and PSREP should not be interpreted as evidence that higher efficacy causes greater support for disruptive protest. The cross-sectional design does not allow conclusions about directionality. It is also possible that individuals who are generally politically engaged both feel more efficacious and hence endorse a broader range of political strategies. Alternatively, other factors—such as political interest or ideological orientation—may underlie both perceived efficacy and support for protest.

Overall, the findings indicate that perceived governmental efficacy and support for disruptive protest tend to go together. This complicates the assumption that radical protest support is primarily rooted in political frustration or alienation and suggests that efficacy may play a role in how individuals evaluate the legitimacy of different forms of political participation.

6.4. RQ4: Interaction Between Anti-Speciesism and Governmental Efficacy

RQ4 examined whether perceived governmental efficacy (PGE) moderates the association between anti-speciesism and principled support for disruptive environmental protest (PSREP).

The interaction between AS and PGE was not statistically significant. While both anti-speciesism and perceived governmental efficacy were positively associated with support for disruptive protest, efficacy did not appear to alter the strength of the relationship between anti-speciesist beliefs and protest endorsement. In other words, individuals who endorsed anti-speciesist views tended to express greater principled support for disruptive protest regardless of whether they perceived political institutions as more or less influenceable.

This suggests that anti-speciesist moral commitments may be linked to protest support in a relatively stable way, rather than depending on perceptions of political opportunity or institutional responsiveness. At the same time, perceived governmental efficacy seems to contribute independently to protest endorsement, indicating that moral conviction and perceived political agency may represent parallel foundations of support for disruptive action.

Given the cross-sectional design, these interpretations remain provisional. Future research would be needed to determine whether efficacy beliefs ever condition the expression of moralized environmental commitments, particularly across different political contexts or over time.

6.5. Integrative Interpretation

Taken together, the findings suggest that principled support for disruptive environmental protest is associated with a combination of behavioural engagement, moral orientation, and perceived political agency.

Across analyses, public pro-environmental behaviour emerged as the most consistent correlate of support for disruptive protest. Individuals already engaged in visible, collective, or organizational forms of environmental action were more likely to express principled support for potentially law-breaking but non-violent protest tactics. This pattern may reflect exposure to movement networks, shared frames, and collective identities within public arenas of engagement. It may also indicate that support for disruptive tactics develops within broader repertoires of political participation rather than outside them.

At the same time, anti-speciesism showed an independent association with protest support, suggesting that moral beliefs concerning the status of non-human life are meaningfully related to endorsement of disruptive action. This indicates that protest support is not solely a matter of strategic calculation or behavioural spillover but may also reflect normative commitments concerning justice beyond the human sphere.

Perceived governmental efficacy further contributed to protest endorsement. Rather than supporting an alienation account of support for REP, the results suggest that support for REP is more likely to be embedded within a broader sense of political agency. Support for disruptive tactics therefore appears to co-exist with, rather than to replace (as in the alienation account of support for REP), confidence in institutional influence.

Importantly, however, perceived governmental efficacy did not moderate the relationship between anti-speciesism and protest support. Moral commitments and perceived efficacy appear to operate in parallel rather than interactively. This suggests that support for disruptive protest may arise from multiple coexisting orientations—behavioural engagement, ethical worldview, and political agency—without requiring a specific alignment between them.

Because the study design is cross-sectional, these patterns should be interpreted as correlational configurations rather than causal pathways. The findings identify structural relationships among orientations and behaviours, but do not establish directionality. Nonetheless, they suggest that more differentiated accounts of support for disruptive environmental protest are more plausible than grievance-based or single-factor explanations.

6.6. Limitations and Future Research

First, the cross-sectional design precludes causal inference. Although we observed consistent associations between public engagement, anti-speciesism, perceived governmental efficacy, and support for disruptive protest, we cannot determine whether these orientations precede, follow, or mutually reinforce one another. Longitudinal panel studies would be particularly valuable for examining developmental trajectories—for example, whether public engagement precedes shifts in moral beliefs, or whether efficacy perceptions evolve alongside protest endorsement.

Second, the reliance on self-reported measures raises the possibility of shared method variance and social desirability effects. Future research could complement survey-based approaches with behavioural indicators, experimental manipulations of perceived efficacy, or vignette-based designs assessing endorsement of specific protest scenarios.

Third, the operationalization focused on principled endorsement of disruptive but non-violent protest. Future research should differentiate between attitudinal support, behavioural intentions, and actual participation, as well as between normative and non-normative tactics.

Fourth, contextual factors were not directly modeled. Political opportunity structures, media framing, and issue salience may shape how efficacy perceptions and moral commitments relate to protest support. Comparative or cross-national research would help clarify whether the observed patterns can be generalized across institutional contexts.

Finally, the non-significant moderation effect suggests that relationships between moral beliefs and efficacy may be more complex than captured in the present model. Future studies could explore additional moderators such as political ideology, collective identity, or perceived injustice, and test more comprehensive structural models.

In sum, while the present findings cannot establish causal mechanisms, they identify a configuration of behavioural, moral, and political orientations that co-occur with principled support for disruptive environmental protest. Clarifying how these orientations develop and interact over time remains an important task for future research.

7. Conclusions and Recommendations

This study identifies systematic associations between public and private pro-environmental behaviour, anti-speciesist beliefs, perceived governmental efficacy, and principled support for disruptive protest in the UK. Our findings suggest that radical beliefs in the form of anti-speciesism do indeed lead to support for radical protest forms, but that this support also draws on a broader and more widely shared set of pro-environmental beliefs, as shown by the even stronger association with a broad range of public pro-environmental behaviours, and with a positive belief in the political impact of activism, contrary to narratives which associate radical protest with cynicism and disengagement.

The study contributes to the literature in three ways. First, it links ecological worldviews—specifically anti-speciesism—to support for contentious environmental action. Second, it demonstrates the analytical importance of distinguishing between private and public pro-environmental behaviours when explaining protest support. Third, it provides evidence that perceived governmental efficacy may coexist with, and positively relate to, endorsement of disruptive protest, pointing toward a potential “strategic efficacy” pathway that merits further investigation.

Given the cross-sectional design, the findings should be interpreted as correlational. Future research should employ longitudinal, experimental, and mixed-method designs to examine causal mechanisms, behavioural spillover processes, and the development of protest attitudes over time. Comparative and multi-country studies would further clarify the contextual robustness of these patterns. Strengthening measurement models and incorporating personality traits, movement roles, and political context variables would also advance understanding of the normative and strategic dimensions of contemporary environmental contention.