Climate Protest—What is it good for? Linking news coverage on German climate movements and reader comments

Table of contents

Bibliographic information

Cover of Volume: SCM Studies in Communication and Media Volume 15 (2026), Issue 3
Open Access Full access

SCM Studies in Communication and Media

Volume 15 (2026), Issue 3

Authors:
Publisher
Nomos, Baden-Baden
Copyright Year
2026
ISSN-Online
2192-4007
ISSN-Print
2192-4007

Chapter information

Open Access Full access

Volume 15 (2026), Issue 3

Climate Protest—What is it good for? Linking news coverage on German climate movements and reader comments

Authors:
ISSN-Print
2192-4007
ISSN-Online
2192-4007
Preview:

Media coverage plays a crucial role in shaping public perception of social movements. While attention-seeking protest tactics meet media selection criteria, they also risk distorting public perception. This study examines the German climate protest scene by comparing two key protest groups: Fridays for Future and Last Generation, the latter often criticized for its disruptive protest tactics. Building on the concept of mediatization, the protest paradigm, and agenda-setting theory, we analyze the mediated impact of different protest strategies on reader comments. Our quantitative content analysis includes 100 online news articles and 1,910 reader comments from three major German news sites (2019–2023). We find that articles about Last Generation focus more on protest actions and are less likely to prompt discussions about the climate issue among commentators. They are also more negative than those about Fridays for Future. However, journalistic evaluations are not directly reflected in the corresponding reader comments. These results suggest that non-normative and disruptive protest strategies could harm the discourse on climate change. Our findings are relevant for social movements and interest groups seeking to raise awareness of socially relevant issues such as climate protection and climate change. Additionally, this study contributes to understanding the dynamics between social movements, the media, and the public within the political communication system.

Bibliography

  1. Andrews, K. T., & Caren, N. (2010). Making the news: Movement organizations, media attention, and the public agenda. American Sociological Review, 75(6), 841–866. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122410386689 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-3-015
  2. Berker, L. E., & Pollex, J. (2023). Explaining differences in party reactions to the Fridays for Future-movement – A qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) of parties in three European countries. Environmental Politics, 32(5), 755–792. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2022.2127536 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-3-015
  3. Boyle, M. P., McLeod, D. M., & Armstrong, C. L. (2012). Adherence to the protest paradigm: The influence of protest goals and tactics on news coverage in U.S. and international newspapers. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 17(2), 127–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161211433837 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-3-015
  4. Brehm, J., & Gruhl, H. (2024). Increase in concerns about climate change following climate strikes and civil disobedience in Germany. Nature Communications, 15(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-46477-4 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-3-015
  5. Brouwer, C., Bolderdijk, J.-W., Cornelissen, G., & Kurz, T. (2022). Communication strategies for moral rebels: How to talk about change in order to inspire self-efficacy in others. WIREs Climate Change, 13(5). https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.781 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-3-015
  6. Brown, D. K., & Mourão, R. R. (2021). Protest coverage matters: How media framing and visual communication affects support for black civil rights protests. Mass Communication and Society, 24(4), 576–596. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2021.1884724 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-3-015
  7. Bugden, D. (2020). Does climate protest work? Partisanship, protest, and sentiment pools. Socius, 6. https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023120925949 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-3-015
  8. Buzogány, A., & Scherhaufer, P. (2022). Framing different energy futures? Comparing Fridays for Future and Extinction Rebellion in Germany. Futures, 137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2022.102904 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-3-015
  9. Camaj, L. (2014). The consequences of attribute agenda-setting effects for political trust, participation, and protest behavior. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 58(4), 634–654. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2014.966363 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-3-015
  10. Caren, N., Andrews, K. T., & Lu, T. (2020). Contemporary social movements in a hybrid media environment. Annual Review of Sociology, 46(1), 443–465. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-121919-054627 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-3-015
  11. Dablander, F., Wimmer, S., & Haslbeck, J. (2025). Media coverage of climate activist groups in Germany. Climatic Change, 178(8), 1–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-025-03959-8 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-3-015
  12. Danner, H., Hagerer, G., Pan, Y., & Groh, G. (2022). The news media and its audience: Agenda setting on organic food in the United States and Germany. Journal of Cleaner Production, 354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131503 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-3-015
  13. Djerf-Pierre, M., & Shehata, A. (2017). Still an agenda setter: Traditional news media and public opinion during the transition from low to high choice media environments. Journal of Communication, 67(5), 733–757. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12327 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-3-015
  14. Doherty, B. (2013). Tactics. In D. A. Snow, D. della Porta, B. Klandermans, & D. McAdam (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Social and Political Movements. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470674871.wbespm210 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-3-015
  15. Eilders, C. (2006). News factors and news decisions. Theoretical and methodological advances in Germany. Communications, 31(1), 5–24. https://doi.org/10.1515/COMMUN.2006.002 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-3-015
  16. eurotopics. (n.d.). Media. eurotopics. https://www.eurotopics.net/en/142186/media Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-3-015
  17. Evans, E. M. (2016). Bearing witness: How controversial organizations get the media coverage they want. Social Movement Studies, 15(1), 41–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/14742837.2015.1060158 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-3-015
  18. Feinberg, M., Willer, R., & Kovacheff, C. (2020). The activist’s dilemma: Extreme protest actions reduce popular support for social movements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 119(5), 1086–1111. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000230 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-3-015
  19. Fretwurst, B. (2013). Intercoderreliabilität und Expertenvalidität bei Inhaltsanalysen: Erläuterungen zur Berechnung des Reliabilitätskoeffizienten Lotus mit SPSS [Intercoder reliability and expert validity in content analyses: Explanations for calculating the Lotus reliability coefficient with SPSS]. Institut für angewandte Kommunikationsforschung. https://iakom.ch/documents/6/LotusManualGer.pdf Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-3-015
  20. Fridays for Future. (2024). Aktionen [Actions]. https://fridaysforfuture.de/aktionen/ Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-3-015
  21. Goldenbaum, M., & Thompson, C. S. (2020). Fridays for Future im Spiegel der Medienöffentlichkeit [Fridays for Future as reflected in the media]. In S. Haunss & M. Sommer (Eds.), Fridays for Future – Die Jugend gegen den Klimawandel (pp. 181–204). transcript. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783839453476-009 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-3-015
  22. Gruber, J. B. (2023). Troublemakers in the streets? A framing analysis of newspaper coverage of protests in the UK 1992–2017. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 28(2), 414–433. https://doi.org/10.1177/19401612221102058 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-3-015
  23. Haßler, J. (2017). Mediatisierung der Klimapolitik [Mediatization of climate policy]. Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-15668-8 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-3-015
  24. Heide, J. (2025). Polarizing social figures? Climate activists in German media and popular discourse. European Societies, 27(5), 959–991. https://doi.org/10.1162/euso_a_00030 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-3-015
  25. Hoppe, I., Lörcher, I., & Kießling, B. (2019). Und die Welt schaut (wieder) hin? Agenda-Setting-Effekte klimabezogener Ereignisse in zwei Online-Öffentlichkeitsarenen [And the world is watching (again)? Agenda-setting effects of climate-related events in two online public arenas]. In I. Neverla, M. Taddicken, I. Lörcher, & I. Hoppe (Eds.), Klimawandel im Kopf: Studien zur Wirkung, Aneignung und Online-Kommunikation (pp. 203–228). Springer Fachmedien. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-22145-4_8 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-3-015
  26. Hunt, K., & Gruszczynski, M. (2021). The influence of new and traditional media coverage on public attention to social movements: The case of the Dakota Access Pipeline protests. Information, Communication & Society, 24(7), 1024–1040. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2019.1670228 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-3-015
  27. Jennings, W., & Saunders, C. (2019). Street demonstrations and the media agenda: An analysis of the dynamics of protest agenda setting. Comparative Political Studies, 52(13–14), 2283–2313. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414019830736 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-3-015
  28. Kalogeropoulos, A., Negredo, S., Picone, I., & Nielsen, R. K. (2017). Who shares and comments on news?: A cross-national comparative analysis of online and social media participation. Social Media + Society, 3(4), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305117735754 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-3-015
  29. Kiousis, S. (2004). Explicating media salience: A factor analysis of New York Times issue coverage during the 2000 U.S. presidential election. Journal of Communication, 54(1), 71–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2004.tb02614.x Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-3-015
  30. Kleut, J., & Milojevic, A. (2021). Framing protest in online news and readers’ comments: The case of Serbian protest “Against Dictatorship”. International Journal of Communication, 15, 82–102. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-3-015
  31. Koltsova, O., & Nagornyy, O. (2019). Redefining media agendas: Topic problematization in online reader comments. Media and Communication, 7(3), 145–156. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v7i3.1894 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-3-015
  32. Kroon, A., Welbers, K., Trilling, D., & van Atteveldt, W. (2024). Advancing automated content analysis for a new era of media effects research: The key role of transfer learning. Communication Methods and Measures, 18(2), 142–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2023.2261372 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-3-015
  33. Kumkar, N. C. (2022, November 16). Die Radikalisierung der Radikalisierungsbehauptung: Zum Diskurs über die Letzte Generation [The radicalization of the radicalization claim: On the discourse about the Last Generation]. Soziopolis: Gesellschaft beobachten. https://www.soziopolis.de/die-radikalisierung-der-radikalisierungsbehauptung.html Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-3-015
  34. Küstner, K. (2023, March 15). “Letzte Generation” bisher “nicht extremistisch” [“Last Generation” so far “not extremist”]. tagesschau. Retrieved from https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/haldenwang-verfassungsschutz-letzte-generation-101.html Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-3-015
  35. Langer, A. I., & Gruber, J. B. (2021). Political agenda setting in the hybrid media system: Why legacy media still matter a great deal. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 26(2), 313–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161220925023 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-3-015
  36. Lee, F. L. F. (2014). Triggering the protest paradigm: Examining factors affecting news coverage of protests. International Journal of Communication, 8, 2725–2746. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-3-015
  37. Letzte Generation. (2024). Gesellschaftsrat + Fragen & Antworten [Citizens’ council + questions & answers]. https://letztegeneration.org/gesellschaftsrat/ Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-3-015
  38. Lörcher, I., & Taddicken, M. (2017). Discussing climate change online. Topics and perceptions in online climate change communication in different online public arenas. Journal of Science Communication, 16(2). https://doi.org/10.22323/2.16020203 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-3-015
  39. Marg, S. (2024). Kurzstudie: Die Letzte Generation. Entwicklung, Merkmale und Einordung (Stand Februar 2024) [Brief study: The Last Generation. Development, characteristics and classification (as of February 2024)]. Institut für Demokratieforschung – Bundesfachstelle Linke Militanz. https://www.linke-militanz.de/data/akten/2024/03/kurzstudie-die-letzte-generation-marg-2024.pdf Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-3-015
  40. McCluskey, M. R. (2008). Activist group attributes and their influences on news portrayal. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 85(4), 769–784. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900808500404 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-3-015
  41. McCombs, M. (2005). A look at agenda-setting: Past, present and future. Journalism Studies, 6(4), 543–557. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616700500250438 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-3-015
  42. McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), 176–187. https://doi.org/10.1086/267990 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-3-015
  43. McCurdy, P. (2012). Social movements, protest and mainstream media. Sociology Compass, 6(3), 244–255. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9020.2011.00448.x Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-3-015
  44. McLeod, D. M. (2007). News coverage and social protest: How the media’s protest paradigm exacerbates social conflict. Journal of Dispute Resolution, 1, 185–194. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-3-015
  45. Meyer, H., Farjam, M., Rauxloh, H., & Brüggemann, M. (2025). From disruptive protests to disrupted news frames: Comparing German news on climate protests. Journalism. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849251372805 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-3-015
  46. Meyer, H., Pröschel, L., & Brüggemann, M. (2025). From disruptive protests to disrupted networks? Analyzing levels of polarization in the German Twitter/X debates on “Fridays for Future” and “Letzte Generation”. Social Media + Society, 11(2), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051251337400 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-3-015
  47. Mirowsky, J., & Ross, C. E. (1981). Protest group success: The impact of group characteristics, social control, and context. Sociological Focus, 14(3), 177–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/00380237.1981.10570394 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-3-015
  48. Molter, N. (2023, May 29). Acht von zehn Deutschen: „Letzte Generation“ tut Klimaschutz keinen Gefallen [Eight out of ten Germans: “Last Generation” is not doing climate protection any favors]. Augsburger Allgemeine. Retrieved from https://www.augsburger-allgemeine.de/special/bayern-monitor/umfrage-acht-von-zehn-deutschen-letzte-generation-tut-klimaschutz-keinen-gefallen-id66635936.html Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-3-015
  49. Nardini, G., Rank-Christman, T., Bublitz, M. G., Cross, S. N. N., & Peracchio, L. A. (2021). Together we rise: How social movements succeed. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 31(1), 112–145. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1201 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-3-015
  50. Nepstad, S. E., & Bob, C. (2006). When do leaders matter? Hypotheses on leadership dynamics in social movements. Mobilization: An International Quarterly, 11(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.17813/maiq.11.1.013313600164m727 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-3-015
  51. Rasmussen, A., Mäder, L. K., & Reher, S. (2018). With a little help from the people? The role of public opinion in advocacy success. Comparative Political Studies, 51(2), 139–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414017695334 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-3-015
  52. Roberts, M., Wanta, W., & Dzwo, T.-H. (D.). (2002). Agenda setting and issue salience online. Communication Research, 29(4), 452–465. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650202029004004 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-3-015
  53. Rucht, D. (2012). Massen mobilisieren [Mobilize the masses]. APuZ, 62(25–26), 3–9. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-3-015
  54. Rucht, D. (2023). Die Letzte Generation: Beschreibung und Kritik [The Last Generation: Description and review] (ipb working series 1/2023). ipb. https://protestinstitut.eu/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/WP_1.2023.pdf Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-3-015
  55. Scheu, A. M. (2019). Between offensive and defensive mediatization. An exploration of mediatization strategies of German science-policy stakeholders. Journal of Science Communication, 18(3). https://doi.org/10.22323/2.18030208 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-3-015
  56. Shuman, E., Goldenberg, A., Saguy, T., Halperin, E., & van Zomeren, M. (2024). When are social protests effective? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 28(3), 252–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2023.10.003 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-3-015
  57. Smidt, C. D. (2012). Not all news is the same: Protests, presidents, and the mass public agenda. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(1), 72–94. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfr019 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-3-015
  58. Smith, J., McCarthy, J. D., McPhail, C., & Augustyn, B. (2001). From protest to agenda building: Description bias in media coverage of protest events in Washington, D.C. Social Forces, 79(4), 1397–1423. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2001.0053 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-3-015
  59. Strehler-Schaaf, M. (2025). Proteste für Zeitungen, Fernsehen und Insta? Wie sich Protestbewegungen (nicht) an wahrgenommene Medienlogiken anpassen [Protests for newspapers, television, and Instagram? How protest movements (do not) adapt to perceived media logic]. Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-49959-4 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-3-015
  60. Strömbäck, J., & Esser, F. (2017). Political public relations and mediatization: The strategies of news management. In P. Van Aelst & S. Walgrave (Eds.), How Political Actors Use the Media: A Functional Analysis of the Media’s Role in Politics (pp. 63–83). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60249-3_4 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-3-015
  61. Strömbäck, J., & Van Aelst, P. (2013). Why political parties adapt to the media: Exploring the fourth dimension of mediatization. International Communication Gazette, 75(4), 341–358. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748048513482266 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-3-015
  62. SWR Aktuell. (2023, July 17). Aktiver Widerstand. Finanzierung, Ziele, Hintergründe: Das ist die “Letzte Generation” [Active resistance. Financing, goals, background: This is the “Last Generation”]. SWR Aktuell. Retrieved from https://web.archive.org/web/20250319025721/https://www.swr.de/swraktuell/letzte-generation-klimaaktivisten-fragen-antworten-100.html Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-3-015
  63. Thomas-Walters, L., Scheuch, E. G., Ong, A., & Goldberg, M. H. (2025). The impacts of climate activism. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2025.101498 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-3-015
  64. Thoms, C. (2023). Im Sinne der Medien – Textverständlichkeit im Nachrichtenauswahlkontext [Serving media preferences – text comprehensibility in the news selection context]. Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-40007-1 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-3-015
  65. Tilly, C., & Tarrow, S. (2015). Contentious politics. Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-3-015
  66. Van Aelst, P., Thesen, G., Walgrave, S., & Vliegenthart, R. (2014). Mediatization and political agenda-setting: Changing issue priorities? In F. Esser & J. Strömbäck (Eds.), Mediatization of Politics: Understanding the Transformation of Western Democracies (pp. 200–220). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137275844_11 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-3-015
  67. Vliegenthart, R., & Walgrave, S. (2012). The interdependency of mass media and social movements. In H. A. Semetko & M. Scammell (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Political Communication (pp. 387–397). SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446201015.n31 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-3-015
  68. Waddell, T. F. (2018). What does the crowd think? How online comments and popularity metrics affect news credibility and issue importance. New Media & Society, 20(8), 3068–3083. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817742905 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-3-015
  69. Wallace, S. J., Zepeda-Millán, C., & Jones-Correa, M. (2014). Spatial and temporal proximity: Examining the effects of protests on political attitudes. American Journal of Political Science, 58(2), 433–448. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12060 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-3-015
  70. Walter, S., Brüggemann, M., & Engesser, S. (2018). Echo chambers of denial: Explaining user comments on climate change. Environmental Communication, 12(2), 204–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2017.1394893 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-3-015
  71. Wouters, R., & Lefevere, J. (2023). Making their mark? How protest sparks, surfs, and sustains media issue attention. Political Communication, 40(5), 615–632. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2023.2188499 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-3-015
  72. Wouters, R., & Van Camp, K. (2017). Less than expected? How media cover demonstration turnout. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 22(4), 450–470. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161217720773 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-3-015
  73. Zlobina, A., & Gonzalez Vazquez, A. (2018). What is the right way to protest? On the process of justification of protest, and its relationship to the propensity to participate in different types of protest. Social Movement Studies, 17(2), 234–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/14742837.2017.1393408 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-3-015

Citation

Download RIS Download BibTex

Downloads

Download chapter (PDF) Full download (PDF)

Notice

This work is protected by copyright and may only be used in accordance with the provisions of the Terms of Use and License Agreement. Any use of the work beyond this is expressly prohibited and will be prosecuted.

Share via email

Media