Emotional responses to state repression predict collective climate action intentions

nature climate change Article https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-026-02570-8 Emotional responses to state repression predict collective climate action intentions Received: 4 July 2025 Accepted: 16 January 2026 Published online: xx xx xxxx Check for updates Sunniva Davies-Rommetveit 1 , Jenny Douch 2, Peter Gardner Anna Aretha Sach 4, Laura Thomas-Walters5 & Nicole Tausch1 , 3 As climate activism has expanded, governments have increasingly repressed disruptive but non-violent protests. Yet evidence remains mixed regarding whether repression inhibits or galvanizes activism. In this study, we examine how anticipated and experienced repression predict intentions to engage in normative (rule-conforming) and non-normative (rule-violating) collective climate action, over and above past activism and core psychological antecedents. Survey data from Extinction Rebellion UK mailing list subscribers (n = 1,375) showed that experienced repression positively predicted non-normative action intentions and showed a positive indirect predictive effect on non-normative action via reduced fear. Although anticipated repression was not directly associated with either action type, it had positive indirect predictive effects on both action types via anger/ outrage and on non-normative action via contempt. Conversely, it also had a negative indirect predictive effect on non-normative action through heightened fear. These findings predominantly reflect a galvanizing effect of repression on disruptive collective climate action among committed activists. Recent years have seen a global increase in the criminalization of peaceful protest1, leading the United Nations to call on governments to protect citizens’ rights to dissent2. Repression, defined as measures that ‘prevent, control, or constrain non-institutional collective action’3, is particularly notable in the case of climate activism4–6. Faced with insufficient government action to avert climate breakdown7–10, climate activists have escalated their use of disruptive protest tactics11–13 (for example, roadblocks). In response, the authorities have intensified restrictions on protest by selectively enforcing counterterrorism laws13 and through new legislation, such as the 2023 Public Order Act in England and Wales13,14. Consequently, climate activists in countries with historically open civil societies now face increased personal risks while protesting, including surveillance, arrest, fines and lengthy prison sentences13. We investigate the drivers of participation in collective climate action, despite the risk of such punitive consequences, among climate activists involved in the protest group Extinction Rebellion. Collective action involves individuals acting collectively to achieve common interests15,16. Conflicting evidence exists on whether and how repression (dis)inhibits collective action intentions1. Some studies find that repression deters engagement17,18, while others report evidence consistent with a galvanizing effect19–21. There has, moreover, been little differentiation between the psychological effects of anticipated repression, that is, the belief that activists may encounter repression, and actual lived experiences of repression in the form of arrests, fines, surveillance or jail time. In situ research on crowd dynamics indicates that harsh treatment of protesters by the police can intensify protest behaviour through the delegitimization of the authorities and collective empowerment of the crowd22. Research examining individuals’ action motivations has similarly found that direct experiences of police violence increased protest intentions in general23, willingness to make sacrifices for the movement23 and intentions to engage in disruptive collective actions specifically21. The latter finding was explained by reduced fear about protesting21. The potential of School of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, UK. 2Independent Researcher, Zaragoza, Spain. 3Department of Sociology, University of York, York, UK. 4Department of Social Psychology, Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, University of Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 5ProVeg International, London, UK. e-mail: 1 Nature Climate Change Article https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-026-02570-8 Percentage of cohort Descriptive statistics 0–5% 55% 6–10% Female 11–15% 16–20% 92% White 77% Bachelor’s degree or higher 20–25% 18–100 Age range Median age 63 62% 3+ years on mailing list 46% In employment 44% Retired 34% 13% 7% 1% Surveilled Arrested Fined Jailed Fig. 1 | Demographic overview of the sample. Detailed information on the sample (n = 1,375 participants) is presented in Supplementary Information. Map created with Flourish (https://flourish.studio). Credit: icons, UXWing (https:// uxwing.com). experienced repression to legitimize disruptive action is documented anecdotally in the climate activist context12,13, where the recent wave of protest criminalization has spurred calls to ‘double down’ on disruptive tactics and to the emergence of groups engaging in covert actions to directly disrupt oil and gas companies12,24. Similarly, recent qualitative evidence suggests that perceived police repression is used by activists to justify participation in law-breaking25,26. The social identity model of collective action (SIMCA)27 integrates three key psychological drivers of engagement. These are subjective grievances that give rise to a sense of injustice27–29, identification with an aggrieved or politicized group (that is, a group that is committed to effect social change)30–34 and a sense of efficacy27. Recent contributions have extended the efficacy concept to encompass a broader range of considerations—distinguishing political efficacy (the belief that one’s group can achieve its political aims)20 from identity consolidation efficacy35 the belief that protest strengthens the movement) and participative efficacy36 (the belief that one’s own participation makes a meaningful contribution to the group)35,36. While SIMCA aims to account for collective action intentions generally, two main forms of collective action have since been distinguished. Normative collective actions15,37 are conceptualized as actions that lie within the societal framework (for example, ratified protest marches or petition signing). Non-normative actions21,37–39 deliberately break the rules of the established system and violate societal norms (for example, roadblocks, public building occupations or superglue lock-ons)33. The psychological drivers of non-normative forms of collective action are much less researched27, particularly for climate activism26,33,40–42 (for exceptions, see refs. 25,43,44). As a result, our understanding remains limited on whether existing models of collective action apply to more disruptive, non-normative acts and how government repression might escalate different types of protest actions. Res (...truncated)