“Radical flanks” are activist groups who perform controversial actions (e.g. violence and destruction) as a form of protest. These groups often have more extreme views, political demands, and tactical choices compared to moderate activists fighting for the same cause. This study investigated how the presence of radical flanks affects the public perception of the overall social movement they represent.

Study One

485 U.K. participants were randomly assigned to nonviolent, radical flank, or violent conditions. All participants were introduced to the issue of the environmental impact of consuming animal products. Each then read a fake newspaper article describing a social movement protesting against a fictional university’s decision to reduce non-animal-based food products at catered events. The article described the actions of two protest groups: the main group (PlanetVeg) and the flank group (SuperGreens).

In the nonviolent condition, the main group held a peaceful demonstration and emailed all university staff and students. The flank group held a peaceful demonstration and distributed a petition to staff and students

In the violent condition, the main group held a forceful demonstration and occupied the university canteen, verbally and physically harassing those eating meat, causing someone in the canteen to take some time away from the university. The violent flank group held a demonstration — which involved the injury of a security guard — and distributed a petition.

Finally, in the radical flank condition, the main group (PlanetVeg) displayed the same behavior as the main group in the nonviolent condition. The flank group (SuperGreens) was violent and displayed the same behavior as the radical group in the violent condition.

Extremity

The main group was perceived as most extreme/violent in the violent condition compared to other conditions. The flank group was perceived as significantly less extreme in the nonviolent condition compared to other conditions.

Support For The Main Group

Support for the main group was significantly higher in the radical flank condition compared to the nonviolent condition, supporting the hypothesis that a moderate group benefit from the presence of a radical flank.

Support For Flank Group

There was no significant difference in the level of support for the flank group between participants in the radical flank and violent conditions. Support for this hypothesis would be that the radical flank receives less support in the radical flank case than the violent case because it is the comparison between the main and radical groups that are predicted to drive support gain and loss.

Identification With Main And Flank Group

Identification with the main group was significantly higher in the radical flank condition compared to the nonviolent condition. Identification with the flank group was not significantly different in the radical and violent conditions. 

Conclusion

This study found that the presence of a radical flank group increased public support and group identification for moderate groups, more than it harmed radicals. 

Study Two

In Study Two, 455 participants from the U.S. were randomly assigned to either the nonviolent, radical flank, or violent condition. Each participant then read a fake newspaper article describing a social movement protesting for a ban on fracking in Uintah County, Utah. Participants read brief descriptions of the actions of two protest groups: the main group (Green Uintah) and the flank group (Stop Fracking).

In the nonviolent group, protesters held a peaceful demonstration, wore protest t-shirts during a speech by the mayor, and hung anti-fracking banners in front of local fracking companies. In the nonviolent flank group, they held a peaceful demonstration, organized a gathering in front of the mayor’s house, and led a march to a fracking construction site.

In the violent condition, a violent main group of protesters held a demonstration that turned into a riot, interrupted the mayor’s speech by throwing objects, and burned down two cars belonging to a local fracking company. The violent flank group held a demonstration that turned into a riot, vandalized the mayor’s house, and destroyed company property at a fracking construction site.

In the radical flank condition, the main group displayed the same behavior as the nonviolent main group, whereas the flank group displayed the same behavior as the radical group in the violent condition.

Just like Study One, study two measured how extreme the participants perceived the groups to be and how much they supported and identified with the groups in the condition. In Study Two, researchers also hypothesized that movement sympathizers would support and identify more with the main group compared to the radical flank, unlike movement resistors.

Extremity

The main group was perceived as the most extreme in the violent condition compared to other conditions. The flank group was perceived as the least extreme in the nonviolent condition compared to other conditions. The flank group was perceived as more extreme in the radical flank condition than in the violent condition.

Support For The Main Group

People who had sympathy for the movement’s cause supported the main group more in the radical flank condition than in the nonviolent one, but resistant participants didn’t show a significant difference. While support for the main group was higher in the radical flank than in the violent condition, the gap was narrower for sympathizers. This suggests sympathizers were more influenced than resistors by the main group’s tactics, whether nonviolent or violent.

Support For Flank Group

For sympathizers, support for the flank group was lower in the radical flank condition than in the violent condition. Resistors displayed the same pattern but the difference was less significant.

Identification With Main And Flank Group

For both sympathizers and resistant participants, the level of identification with the main group didn’t significantly differ depending on the condition. For sympathizers, identification with the radical flank was significantly lower in the radical flank condition compared to the violent condition. Sympathizers also reacted more strongly towards chosen tactics than resistant observers.

It’s uncertain whether radical flanks are more effective when separated from moderates or in close collaboration. Study Two introduced the idea that the moderate group and radical flank were once united but split, which wasn’t mentioned in Study One, possibly influencing the results. 

Conclusion

Study Two found that the radical flank group lost support due to comparison with the moderates, with observers sympathetic to the cause reacting more negatively to the radicals’ tactics. While the gain in support for moderates was not significant, sympathizers showed a trend of stronger support for nonviolent moderates.

Takeaways

Future experiments should compare scenarios of radical flanks operating independently versus collaborating with moderates and investigate potential risks resulting from comparisons between moderates and radical flanks.

This study underscores the idea that radical flanks undermine their support rather than that of moderate groups. Individuals tend to strengthen their bonds with a group when contrasting it with one with which they have fewer shared values. Consequently, it highlights the significance for groups to recognize their stance within a movement and assess how comparisons within the movement can impact their support levels.