Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42536736›Full record

ReviewScience advances2026

Most people who agree with you won't protest: Predictors of marches and demonstrations from six decades of research.

Shelley Boulianne, Jennifer Earl

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Science advances, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Shelley BoulianneR. Klein Research Chair (Full Professor) in Communication Studies, Mount Royal University, Calgary, AB T3E 6K6, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-8951-1098
Jennifer EarlChair and Full Professor, Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0904-1605

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Protest and activism are endemic and potent features of many nations' political life and critical potential counters to democratic backsliding and authoritarianism. In this review article, we meta-analytically examine six decades of research findings on what explains participation, focusing particularly on two well-studied protest forms: marches and demonstrations. Focusing on these iconic and common forms of protest participation ensures accurate research comparison, allowing us to identify sets of variables that are consistently important, others that are not consistently important, and still others that need additional research. Our focus on survey-based studies also allows us to compare research that includes both participants and nonparticipants, which is critical for methodologically sound comparisons. Our analysis of 181 survey-based studies (with more than 1800 different estimates) shows that survey research strongly supports the relevance of political interest, political ideology, membership in organizations, and digital/social media use in explaining participation, as well as demographic variables such as education, age, and living in an urban center. Our review also offers important suggestions for future survey research and micromobilization research more broadly.

Indexed as

PoliticsResearchHumans

Identifiers

PMID42536736
PMCPMC13426416

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.