“Disruptive protest” occurs when protesters publicly disrupt events or activities to receive attention and support for a cause. Research into disruptive protest is becoming more common (including Faunalytics’ study of different animal advocacy tactics). However, we still don’t know enough to confirm whether disruptive protests are effective when it comes to changing people’s attitudes toward animal protection issues. 

This case study examined how one disruptive protest influenced public attitudes toward animals, as well as its effects on the mobilization of activists and donations. In April 2023, Animal Rising protested at the U.K.’s biggest horse racing event, the Grand National, as a way to generate awareness about factory farming and animal exploitation. Protesters went onto the racetrack and delayed the start of the race, gaining significant media attention and sparking a national debate about society’s relationship with animals. 

The researchers surveyed 1,997 individuals before the Grand National and 1,720 individuals after the protest to find out how the event impacted their attitudes toward different animal issues. Specifically, they were interested in learning how people felt about society’s relationship with and treatment of animals, their attitudes toward vegans, and whether people should change how they treat animals. Using data from Animal Rising’s sign-up and fundraising pages, they also explored whether people were more inclined to donate and/or join Animal Rising after they had learned about the protest. 

The authors discovered that the protest had both positive and negative consequences. For instance, awareness of the protest did inspire more people to either donate to or sign up to join Animal Rising. Furthermore, protest awareness was correlated with thoughts about animal rights issues (in other words, people who were more aware of the protest also tended to think more about these issues afterward). As awareness is a first step toward attitude change, the authors believe this finding can be seen as a positive outcome for animal rights protests. 

However, the research also showed negative consequences. For example, people who were more aware of the protest and of Animal Rising tended to agree less with the idea that society’s relationship with animals is broken. These respondents also tended to agree less that we need to change how we treat animals used for entertainment. Finally, people aware of the protest were less likely to agree that we need to change how we treat animals used for food. 

The authors also found a strong degree of polarization in the results. Specifically, people that already had negative views towards animal rights before the protest tended to show  increasingly more negative views after the protest. The opposite was true for people with positive views towards animal rights before the protest. 

Similarly, when respondents rated news coverage of the protests as supportive and positive, they tended to hold more favorable animal rights views. The authors argue that people tend to hold certain attitudes toward animals based on their political beliefs. They also tend to consume media that align with these beliefs, which in turn may solidify their views about animals. 

It remains unclear whether disruptive protests have a significant impact on public opinion, donations, and support in the long term. However, this study indicates that in the short term, disruptive protests can mobilize people toward animal advocacy and encourage financial support. Since these protests often attract media attention, they can also get people to think about animal issues that weren’t previously on their mind. However, the negative and potentially polarizing consequences should also be taken into account to avoid a backlash effect.