Qualified support for normative vs. non-normative protest: Less invested members of advantaged groups are most supportive when the protest fits the opportunity for status improvement

Disadvantaged groups use different means to protest inequality. Normative protest is more likely when the societal context of inter-group inequality signals that there is opportunity for status improvement. Non-normative protest is more likely to occur in systems in which status improvement is unlikely. However, little is known about how advantaged groups react to (normative vs. non-normative) protest as a function of the likelihood for status improvement of the disadvantaged offered by the context (high vs. low). Four experiments (N = 1092) assessed endorsement of protest among advantaged group members using different operationalizations of likelihood for status improvement and type of protest in four different intergroup contexts. Advantaged group members scoring lower in self-investment in their group identity endorsed protest more when the form of protest matched likelihood for status improvement than when it did not. Specifically, less invested members most supported normative protest (i.e., marches, petitions) when likelihood for status improvement was high and non-normative protest (i.e., hacking, destruction of property) occurring in contexts in which status improvement was unlikely. Highly self-invested individuals tended to be unaffected by the form of protest or type of inequality. Mediated moderation analyses suggested that increased appraisals of illegitimacy of inequality explained why support (i.e. among the less invested) was higher when the form of protest fitted opportunity for societal improvement. Results suggest that those less committed to their advantaged position jointly consider type of protest and its context of occurrence when forming opinions on acceptability of disadvantaged protest.