Social movements that want to influence political decisions are faced with a dilemma: on the one hand, they do not want to achieve their goals by winning political majorities, on the other hand, they depend on feedback for their concerns in order for things to move.

Actions must therefore not only generate attention, but also approval of one's own problem definition.

In the case of the climate movement, it is currently often diagnosed that the increasingly radical actions of parts of the movement could damage their goals: road blockades, sticking and the decoration of publicly exhibited paintings with mashed potatoes guaranteed media attention, but did not increase approval for climate protection measures.

In fact, the actions of the "last generation" are also being criticized within the climate movement.

It can be assumed that the majority of the population rejects actions that damage property or even endanger people.

But that doesn't mean that the movement is harmed.

Historical experience teaches that many social movements have been successful not only in spite of but also because of a "radical flank".

In a recent study, the sociologists Brent Simpson, Robb Willer and Matthew Feinberg ask whether the benefit or harm of a radical flank can be more precisely determined.

They conducted two polling experiments to examine the effects of a radical faction on support for a movement's core goals.

Respondents were confronted with two portraits each of protest groups from the animal rights and climate protection movements.

Some of the respondents were offered two moderate descriptions, others one radical and one moderate.

In this way, it was possible to determine whether the assessment of the moderate faction changes as a result of being able to compare it with a radical faction, and if so, in what way.

While a negative effect can be based on equating the entire movement with its radical part, a positive effect can be explained by a contrast effect:

Moderates appear more moderate when there are also extremists

The contrasting descriptions of the movement factions portray both the tactics and the goals: moderate animal and climate protectionists organized demonstrations and information events, while the radicals blocked traffic and smeared delivery trucks of the meat industry with blood and offal or attacked the employees of oil companies.

The program also differed: animal welfare was to be promoted either by reducing meat consumption or by radically rejecting any consumption of animal products;

protect the climate either by phasing out fossil fuels within 15 years or by banning them immediately.

Respondents were generally more supportive of moderate tactics and goals.

In addition, the comparison with the radical flank also influenced identification with and support for the moderate faction: while the effect of a radical agenda was small, radical tactics led to significantly higher support for the rest of the movement.

Verbal radicalism alone has no consequences - it is apparently not taken as seriously as physical violence.

The positive effect of a radical flank is conveyed via the assessment of the moderate faction, which changes under the impression of the comparison: the radical actions make the actions of the others appear all the more moderate, which makes it easier to identify with the moderate faction and leads to a greater willingness to support .

However, this also benefits the general approval of the movement's goals, which - contrary to what is often assumed - is not diminished by the confrontation with radical tactics.

A division of labor between radical attention maximization and moderate solution orientation can therefore be beneficial in supporting a social movement.

In addition to this result, however, there is the realization that the public apparently attaches little importance to the political agenda of a movement: it is mainly supported because of its actions, which should not hurt anyone too much.