The animal advocacy movement, like other social movements, uses various tactics to drive change. Tactics are specific methods used to build public support and pressure institutions. However, advocates often default to familiar tactics rather than evaluating which approaches may be most effective in a given situation. 

The authors of this report compiled data on nearly 100 different social movements and coded the tactics they used. As there is little extant research evaluating specific tactics, this report serves to highlight and summarize existing frameworks. The authors’ overall aim was to provide a resource for advocacy groups to improve their campaign strategies.

Social movement theory provides valuable insights for animal advocates looking to expand their tactical options and maximize their impact. Two key concepts are tactical innovation and tactical diversity.

Tactical innovation involves using novel tactics that surprise the opposition and attract media attention. By employing creative and unexpected approaches, advocates can catch their targets off guard and generate fresh interest in their cause. For example, during the U.S. civil rights movement, the 1955-56 Montgomery bus boycott was a transformative tactical innovation. At the time, 70-75% of bus fares came from Black ridership. The boycott leveraged the Black community’s economic power to challenge segregation in public transportation.

Tactical diversity, on the other hand, involves using a range of tactics to apply pressure from multiple angles, mobilize different groups of supporters, and create a sense of a growing movement. By employing a variety of approaches, advocates can engage a wider audience and make it more difficult for their targets to counter their efforts. The 1963 Birmingham campaign exemplified tactical diversity by deploying sit-ins, mass marches, and jail-filling in rapid succession, overwhelming the opposition and sparking a social crisis.

The report offers the “dWUNC” framework as a tool for evaluation of which tactics may be most effective:

• Diversity: Wide range of participants from different backgrounds
• Worthiness: Demonstrating moral high ground and righteousness
• Unity: Unified voice and shared purpose among supporters
• Numbers: Mobilizing a large quantity of participants
• Commitment: Determination and willingness to make personal sacrifices

Other success factors to consider include:

• Action logic: Tactics should have a clear and compelling connection to the cause
• Media coverage: Tactics that generate positive media attention can boost public support
• Accessibility: Tactics should be inclusive and allow diverse participation
• Adaptability: Being flexible and adjusting tactics based on evolving circumstances

This study suggests that evidence on confrontational and disruptive tactics is mixed. Some studies suggest extreme tactics can alienate the public and hinder the movement. However, the “radical flank effect” proposes that the presence of militant factions can make moderate groups seem more reasonable by comparison, boosting their support. Disruptive tactics can be effective in pressuring the opposition but should be used strategically to avoid backlash.

Historical examples of effective disruptive tactics include the suffragettes chaining themselves to railings to demand the right to vote and AIDS activists staging die-ins to demand government action during the epidemic. These actions, while controversial, succeeded in drawing attention to urgent issues and applying pressure on decision-makers.

However, the authors note that research clearly shows that violent tactics are counterproductive. Violent tactics have a higher barrier to participation, reducing a movement’s numbers and diversity. They also surrender the moral high ground, making the public less likely to sympathize with the cause. Additionally, using violent tactics alongside nonviolent civil disobedience can discredit the entire movement and provoke harsher repression according to the authors.

The case of Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC), an animal rights campaign that used aggressive and sometimes violent tactics against Huntingdon Life Sciences, Europe’s largest animal testing company, illustrates the risks of confrontational tactics that cross ethical lines. Despite inflicting economic damage, the authors state that SHAC was ultimately unsuccessful, as its extreme actions provoked a law enforcement crackdown and alienated the public.

Animal advocates should treat tactical selection as a strategic decision, not a default based on tradition. By studying social movement history and theory, advocates can cultivate both tactical innovation and diversity, carefully choosing tactics that demonstrate the movement’s power according to the dWUNC framework. With creativity and good judgment, animal advocates can deploy the most effective tactics for their context, building a robust movement that pulls institutions and society towards justice for animals.