you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

From what I gathered reading the interview mentioned (I'll see if I can find it) it was the statistical results they couldn't argue with. There was just as much skepticism and resistance to these tactics internally, until the results couldn't be ignored. Activists are generally concerned about likability and are not analagous to nihilistic billionaire narcissists.

edit - This article by a disruptive politics researcher isn't the interview I'm looking for but it illustrates my ideas here better than I have.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (1 child)

    Are you referring to The credibility of shock advocacy: Animal rights attack messages

    Results indicated that PETA's attack message against abuses at corporate pig farms was effective in eroding the credibility of the corporate food-industry raising animals for consumption. At the same time, PETA's credibility rose overall after participants viewed the PETA attack message.

    That seems to align with your argument but not with the topic. The study was focused on corporate pig farm.

    The 53 participants were volunteers participating for course credit from upper division communication courses at a large public university located in an area where agribusiness interests loom large.

    This is a terrible sample to base any conclusions on.

    The results only give clear indication that such advocacy messages intensify already existing negative predispositions

    And this indicates it is not a generally useful approach.

    The study doesn't measure how long the effect lasts; outrage is fleeting.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment