The Copenhagen Experiment: testing the effectiveness of creative vs. conventional forms of activism

Abstract

In recent decades the importance of emotion for social mobilization has been recognized. Likewise, there has been a recent upsurge of descriptive and theoretical work done on creative forms of activism that mobilize affect. What is missing is an evidence-based, empirical study of the variable impact of creative vs. conventional forms of activism on a public audience. To address this knowledge gap, the authors designed and staged a public experiment on the comparative effect and affect of creative vs. more conventional forms of activism over three days on a busy bridge in Copenhagen, Denmark. Our experiment design allowed us to analyse differences and similarities on several levels: attention, thought, feeling, memory, and action. We found that a creative approach was more effective at delivering upon traditional advocacy objectives like awareness, engagement, and receptiveness than conventional means. In addition, the affective responses of most people we interviewed and observed were decidedly more positive towards the creative interventions than for more conventional ones. Follow-up surveys also revealed that creative activism proved to be more memorable and result in more ensuing action on the issues. A ‘double edge’ to creative activism, however, was also observed. The novelty, humor, and surprise of creative forms of activism that generated interest and mobilized affect, could also result in ‘non-productive confusion,’ scepticism regarding the issue, and undermining the seriousness of the activists and their cause. Qualifications aside, the data gathered from the “Copenhagen Experiment” strongly suggest that creative activism is more effective, in part because it is more affective, than conventional forms of activism.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 32 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.