Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T03:36:02.019Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Violence on Many Sides: Framing Effects on Protest and Support for Repression

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 December 2019

Pearce Edwards Open the ORCID record for Pearce Edwards [Opens in a new window]  and
Daniel Arnon Open the ORCID record for Daniel Arnon [Opens in a new window]
Pearce Edwards*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Emory University, Georgia, USA
Daniel Arnon
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Emory University, Georgia, USA
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The success of protests depends on whether they favorably affect public opinion: nonviolent resistance can win public support for a movement, but regimes counter by framing protest as violent and instigated by outsiders. The authors argue that public perceptions of whether a protest is violent shift based on the framing of the types of action and the identities of participants in those actions. The article distinguishes between three dimensions: (1) threat of harm, (2) bearing of arms and (3) identity of protesters. Using survey experiments in Israel and the United States, the study finds support for framing effects. Threat of harm has the largest positive effect on perceptions of violence and support for repression. Surprisingly, social out-groups are not perceived as more violent, but respondents favor repressing them anyway. Support for repressing a nonthreatening out-group is at least as large as support for repressing a threatening in-group. The findings link contentious action and public opinion, and demonstrate the susceptibility of this link to framing.

Keywords

protestnonviolent resistancepolitical violencecontentious politicsrepression of dissentidentityexperimental methodsheterogeneous treatment effects
Type
Article
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 51 , Issue 2 , April 2021 , pp. 488 - 506
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abramowitz, AI and Webster, SW (2018) Negative partisanship: why Americans dislike parties but behave like rabid partisans. Political Psychology 39, 119–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aronow, PM and Miller, BT (2019) Foundations of Agnostic Statistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Associated Press (2017) Israeli Arab, Policeman Killed Amid Clashes Over Demolition of Palestinian Homes. Available from https://www.voanews.com/a/israeli-arab-policeman-killed-amid-clashes-over-demolition-of-palestinian-homes/3681501.html?fbclid=IwAR37IaUUkKzyRJ9Qiamdw37w0xuUGYvHNUje2NXm3vSaJeThEj8KnSpClqY.Google Scholar
Aytac, SE, Schiumerini, L and Stokes, S (2017) Why do people join backlash protests? Lessons from Turkey. Journal of Conflict Resolution 62(6), 1205–1228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berinsky, A (2017) Rumors and health care reform: experiments in political misinformation. British Journal of Political Science 47(2), 241–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, P (2012) June: Assad Calls Protesters Terrorists. Available from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BC-UHDBa34.Google Scholar
Blakinger, K and Barned-Smith, St. J (2017) Hundreds of Protesters Face off in Houston Over Confederate Statue. Available from https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Protesters-to-face-off-over-Confederacy-statue-in-11943765.php.Google Scholar
Brewer, MB (1979) In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: a cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin 86(2), 307–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buhrmester, M, Kwang, T and Gosling, SD (2011) Amazon's Mechanical Turk: a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality data. Perspectives on Psychological Science 6(1), 3–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Canetti, D et al. (2017) Exposure to violence, ethos of conflict, and support for compromise: surveys in Israel, East Jerusalem, West Bank, and Gaza. Journal of Conflict Resolution 61(1), 84–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carney, DR et al. (2008) The secret lives of liberals and conservatives: personality profiles, interaction styles, and the things they leave behind. Political Psychology 29(6), 807–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chatman, CM and Von Hippel, W (2001) Attributional mediation of in-group bias. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 37(3), 267–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chenoweth, E and Lewis, OA (2013) Unpacking nonviolent campaigns: introducing the NAVCO 2.0 dataset. Journal of Peace Research 50(3), 415–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chenoweth, E and Stephan, M (2011) Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Coppock, A (2019) Avoiding post-treatment bias in audit experiments. Journal of Experimental Political Science 6, 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coppock, A, Leeper, TJ and Mullinix, KJ (2018) Generalizability of heterogeneous treatment effect estimates across samples. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115(49), 12441–1446.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dahlum, S (2019) Students in the streets: education and nonviolent protest. Comparative Political Studies 52(2), 277–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D'Orazio, V and Salehyan, I (2018) Who is a terrorist? Ethnicity, group affiliation, and understandings of political violence. International Interactions 44(6), 1017–1039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, JN (2001) On the limits of framing effects: who can frame? Journal of Politics 63(4), 1041–1066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, JN (2004) Political preference formation: competition, deliberation, and the (ir)relevance of framing effects. American Political Science Review 98(4), 671–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Earl, J, Soule, S and McCarthy, J (2003) Policing under fire. American Sociological Review 68, 581–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, P, Arnon, D (2019) “Replication Data for: “Violence on Many Sides” Framing Effects on Protest and Support for Repression”, https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/IJNZWK, Harvard Dataverse, V1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisinger, PK (1973) The conditions of protest behavior in American cities. American Political Science Review 67(1), 11–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enos, RD and Gidron, N (2018) Exclusion and cooperation in diverse societies: experimental evidence from Israel. American Political Science Review 112(4), 742–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feinberg, WE and Johnson, NR (1988) ‘Outside agitators’ and crowds: results from a computer simulation model. Social Forces 67(2), 398–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hesson, T, Morin, R and Restuccia, A (2018) ‘Consider it a Rifle’: Trump Says Migrants Throwing Rocks will be Treated as Armed. Available from https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/01/trump-immigration-953569.Google Scholar
Hogan, W (2007) Many Minds, One Heart: SNCC's Dream for a New America. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Huff, C and Kertzer, JD (2018) How the public defines terrorism. American Journal of Political Science 62(1), 55–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huff, C and Tingley, D (2015) Who are these people? Evaluating the demographic characteristics and political preferences of MTurk survey respondents. Research and Politics 2(3), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iyengar, S and Westwood, SJ (2015) Fear and loathing across party lines: new evidence on group polarization. American Journal of Political Science 59(3), 690–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kane, JV and Barabas, J (2019) No harm in checking: using factual manipulation checks to assess attentiveness in experiments. American Journal of Political Science 63(1), 234–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kertzer, JD and Zeitzoff, T (2017) A bottom-up theory of public opinion about foreign policy. American Journal of Political Science 61(3), 543–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuttab, D (2018) The Truth about Gaza. Available from https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2018/05/gaza-protests-israel-claims-hamas-violence-self-defense.html.Google Scholar
Lupu, Y and Wallace, GPR (2019) Violence, non-violence, and the effects of international human rights law. American Journal of Political Science 63(2), 411–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madestam, A et al. (2013) Do political protests matter? Evidence from the Tea Party movement. Quarterly Journal of Economics 128(4), 1633–1685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maoz, I and McCauley, C (2008) Threat, dehumanization, and support for retaliatory aggressive policies. Journal of Conflict Resolution 52(1), 93–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mazumder, S (2018) The persistent effect of U.S. civil rights protests on political attitudes. American Journal of Political Science 62(4), 922–935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAdam, D and Su, Y (2002) The war at home: antiwar protests and congressional voting, 1965 to 1973. American Sociological Review 67(5), 696–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAdam, D, Tarrow, S and Tilly, C (2001) Dynamics of Contention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merica, D (2017) Trump Condemns ‘Hatred, Bigotry and Violence on Many Sides’ in Charlottesville. Available from https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/12/politics/trump-statement-alt-right-protests/index.html.Google Scholar
Meyer, J et al. (2019) FBI, Homeland Security Warn of More ‘Antifa’ Attacks. Available from https://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/01/antifa-charlottesville-violence-fbi-242235.Google Scholar
News, M (2018) The News – Wave of Terror Strikes West Bank in Single Week. Available from https://www.mako.co.il/news-military/security-q4_2018/Article-ea233b327ada761004.htm.Google Scholar
Pearlman, W (2018) Moral identity and protest cascades in Syria. British Journal of Political Science 48(4), 877–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peffley, M, Hutchison, ML and Shamir, M (2015) The impact of persistent terrorism on political tolerance: Israel 1980 to 2011. American Political Science Review 109(4), 817–832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, BJ (2017) Deadlier in the US? On lone wolves, terrorist groups, and attack lethality. Terrorism and Political Violence 29(3), 533–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piazza, JA (2015) Terrorist suspect religious identity and public support for harsh interrogation and detention practices. Political Psychology 36(6), 667–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pion-Berlin, D (1988) The national security doctrine, military threat perception, and the ‘dirty war’ in Argentina. Comparative Political Studies 21(3), 382–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pressman, J (2017) Throwing stones in social science: non-violence, unarmed violence, and the first intifada. Cooperation and Conflict 6(4), 519–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shadwick, L (2017) VIDEO: ‘Hey, Hey, Ho, Ho, These Racist Statues Have to Go!’. Available from https://www.breitbart.com/border/2017/08/20/video-hey-hey-ho-ho-racist-statues-go/.Google Scholar
Spaaij, R (2010) The enigma of lone wolf terrorism: an assessment. Studies in Conflict and Terrorism 33(9), 854–870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephan, MJ and Chenoweth, E (2008) Why civil resistance works: the strategic logic of nonviolent conflict. International Security 33(1), 7–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilly, C (2008) Contentious Performances. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, GPR (2014) Martial law? Military experience, international law and support for torture. International Studies Quarterly 58, 501–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wasow, O (2017) Do Protests Matter? Evidence from the 1960s Black Insurgency. Working Paper. http://www:omarwasow:com/ProtestsonVoting:pdf.Google Scholar
Young, LE (2019) The psychology of state repression: fear and dissent decisions in Zimbabwe. American Political Science Review 113(1), 140–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeira, Y (2018) From the schools to the streets: education and anti-regime resistance in the West Bank. Comparative Political Studies 52(8), 1131–1168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeitzoff, T (2018) Anger, legacies of violence, and group conflict: an experiment in post-riot Acre, Israel. Conflict Management and Peace Science 35(4), 402–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Edwards and Arnon Dataset

Dataset

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/IJNZWK
Link
Supplementary material: PDF

Edwards and Arnon supplementary material

Online Appendix

Download Edwards and Arnon supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 444.1 KB