Protest is a critical tool of social change; unfortunately, protest outcomes in the United States have always been extremely variable. This trend holds true in the case of protest movements against fossil fuel pipelines (e.g., natural gas pipelines). Case-study-based research has found it is very unlikely for pipeline projects to be cancelled, even when protest tactics are more radical. There is a lack of research on how protest outcomes (success or failure) influence non-protestors' perceptions of the movement, as well as their own political behavior. Previous work has found that repeated failure of a protest movement leads to increased support for more radical tactics. However, additional research suggests that more radical tactics may reduce support for the protest movement and the larger issue at hand. This thesis aims to extend on these conclusions in a survey-based experiment that manipulates the intensity of the tactics (radical/not radical) and the outcome (constructed/not constructed) of a fake anti-pipeline protest movement. Participants are UMass undergraduate students assigned to one of four conditions and asked to respond to questions measuring their perceptions of the protest movement, the pipeline, the legitimacy of the protest tactics, the validity of the outcome, and their propensity to engage in future activism. I hypothesize that I will find significant support for radical tactics within the pipeline-constructed conditions, particularly if more radical tactics are initially used. I hope that this research will inform the mobilization efforts of future collective action movements.