Why do climate activists stay and why do they leave? Mixed-methods analyses of interview data point to collective efficacy and collective identity beliefs

Climate activist groups play a crucial role in driving policy change, yet they often struggle with small memberships and high attrition. To understand the psychology of what sustains membership in climate organizations, we interviewed activists. We compared those who stayed engaged ( N = 18) to those who did not ( N = 17) to find out whether the groups differed in (1) their reasons for staying engaged and (2) their obstacles to staying engaged . We report two kinds of qualitative analysis (one using bottom-up codes derived from the data and the other using top-down themes from the literature) and one quantitative analysis. We found that, across all three methods, staying engaged was related to various forms of collective efficacy, i.e., the belief that activist groups as a whole can make a difference, the belief that one's particular organization can make a difference, the belief that a particular change making strategy is effective, and the importance of celebrating wins. A second result, also quite consistent across methods, was that those who didn't stay engaged reported a lack of collective identity. This was expressed as weaker alignment with the organization's strategy, weaker community ties, greater interpersonal conflict, and a lack of racial, gender, and class sensitivity and inclusivity. These rich and nuanced analyses of interview data may provide insights to guide organizers to better engage their members.