An emerging consensus holds that nonviolent resistance campaigns are more successful than violent campaigns, partly because they attract more participants. Yet, we lack an understanding of whether and why nonviolent tactics attracts support. We propose two motivational logics that can explain support for nonviolence: An instrumentalist logic, whereby nonviolent resistance is preferred based on cost-benefit considerations, and an intrinsic logic where nonviolent resistance is preferred because of perceived inherent moral worth. To investigate the motivational pull of these two logics, we conduct a pre-registered survey experiment among more than 5000 respondents across 33 countries in fall 2019. We find that nonviolent tactics strongly increase movement support relative to violent tactics, and that the preference for nonviolence is primarily driven by intrinsic commitments to the moral worth of nonviolent resistance, rather than instrumental considerations.
AcemogluD.RobinsonJ. A. (2001). A theory of political transitions. American Economic Review, 91(4), 938–963. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.91.4.938
2.
AidtT. SLeonG., (2015). The democratic window of opportunity evidence from riots in sub-saharan africa. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 60(4), 0022002714564014–0022002714564717. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002714564014
AndersonC. J.TverdovaY. V. (2003). Corruption, political allegiances, and attitudes toward government in contemporary democracies. American Journal of Political Science, 47(1), 91–109. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5907.00007
5.
ArvesS.CunninghamK. G.McCullochC. (2019). Rebel tactics and external public opinion. Research & Politics, 6(3), 2053168019877032. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168019877032
BensleyL.Van EenwykJ. (2001). Video games and real-life aggression: Review of the literature. Journal of Adolescent Health, 29(4), 244–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1054-139x(01)00239-7
8.
BlairG.FairC. C.MalhotraN.ShapiroJ. N. (2013). Poverty and support for militant politics: Evidence from Pakistan. American Journal of Political Science, 57(1), 30–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2012.00604.x
9.
BlattmanC. (2009). From violence to voting: War and political participation in Uganda. American Political Science Review, 103(2), 231–247. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1352325209090211
CarlsonE. (2015). Ethnic voting and accountability in africa: A choice experiment in Uganda. World Politics, 67(2), 353–385. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0043887115000015
12.
ChenowethE. (2019). Women’s participation and the fate of nonviolent campaigns: A report on the women in resistance (WiRe) data set. One Earth Future Foundation.
ChenowethE.StephanM. J. (2011). Why civil resistance works: The strategic logic of nonviolent conflict. Columbia studies in terrorism; irregular warfare.
CostalliS.RuggeriA. (2017). Emotions, ideologies, and violent political mobilization. PS: Political Science and Politics, 50(4), 923–927. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1049096517000993
17.
DafoeA.ZhangB.CaugheyD. (2018). Information equivalence in survey experiments. Political Analysis, 26(4), 399–416. https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2018.9
18.
DahlumS. (2018). “Students in the streets: Education and nonviolent protest”. comparative political studies, 52(2), 0010414018758761. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414018758761
19.
DaltonR.Van SickleA.WeldonS. (2010). The individual–institutional nexus of protest behaviour. British journal of political science, 40(1), 51–73. https://doi.org/10.1017/s000712340999038x
20.
DavenportC.Håvard Mokleiv NygårdF. H.ArmstrongD. (2019). The consequences of contention: Understanding the aftereffects of political conflict and violence. Annual Review of Political Science, 22(1), 361–377. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-050317-064057
21.
FairC. C.LittmanR.MalhotraN.ShapiroJ. N. (2016). Relative poverty, perceived violence, and support for militant politics: Evidence from Pakistan. Political Science Research and Methods, 6(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2016.6
22.
FlynnD. J.StewartM. A. (2018). Secessionist social services reduce the public costs of civilian killings: Experimental evidence from the United States and the United Kingdom. Research & Politics, 5(4), 2053168018810077. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168018810077
23.
HainmuellerJ.HangartnerD.YamamotoT. (2015). Validating vignette and conjoint survey experiments against real-world behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(8), 2395–2400. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1416587112
24.
HainmuellerJ.HopkinsD. J. (2015). The hidden American immigration consensus: A conjoint analysis of attitudes toward immigrants. American Journal of Political Science, 59(3), 529–548. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12138
25.
HillesundS. (2015). A dangerous discrepancy: Testing the micro-dynamics of horizontal inequality on Palestinian support for armed resistance. Journal of Peace Research, 52(1), 76–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343314551080
26.
HumphreysM.WeinsteinJ. M. (2008). Who fights? The determinants of participation in civil war. American Journal of Political Science, 52(2), 436–455. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2008.00322.x
27.
ImaiK.KeeleL.TingleyD.YamamotoT. (2011). Unpacking the black box of causality: Learning about causal mechanisms from experimental and observational studies. American Political Science Review, 105(4), 765–789. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055411000414
28.
JohnsR.DaviesG. A. M. (2019). Civilian casualties and public support for military action: Experimental evidence. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 63(1), 251–281. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002717729733
29.
KadivarM. A.KetchleyN. (2018). Sticks, stones, and molotov cocktails: Unarmed collective violence and democratization. Socius, 4, 2378023118773614. https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023118773614
30.
KantI.SchneewindJ. B. (2002). Groundwork for the metaphysics of morals. Yale University Press.
31.
KorsgaardC. M.Marion KorsgaardC. (1996). Creating the kingdom of ends. Cambridge University Press.
32.
KuranT. (1991). Now out of never: The element of surprise in the east European revolution of 1989. World Politics, 44(1), 7–48. https://doi.org/10.2307/2010422
33.
LupuY.WallaceG. P. R. (2019). Violence, nonviolence, and the effects of international human rights law. American Journal of Political Science, 63(2), 411–426. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12416
34.
McAdamD. (1986). Recruitment to high-risk activism: The case of freedom summer. American Journal of Sociology, 92(1), 64–90. https://doi.org/10.1086/228463
35.
MontgomeryJ. M.NyhanB.TorresM. (2018). How conditioning on posttreatment variables can ruin your experiment and what to do about it. American Journal of Political Science, 62(3), 760–775. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12357
36.
MuñozJ.AnduizaE. (2019). ‘If a fight starts, watch the crowd’: The effect of violence on popular support for social movements. Journal of Peace Research, 56(4), 0022343318820575. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343318820575
37.
OrbellJ. M. (1967). Protest participation among Southern Negro college students. American Political Science Review, 61(2), 446–456. https://doi.org/10.2307/1953256
38.
PalanS.SchitterC. (2018). Prolific. ac—a subject pool for online experiments. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 17, 22–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2017.12.004
39.
PeerE.BrandimarteL.SamatS.AcquistiA. (2017). Beyond the Turk: Alternative platforms for crowdsourcing behavioral research. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 70, 153–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.01.006
40.
PinckneyJ. (2016). Making or breaking nonviolent discipline in civil resistance movements. ICNC Press.
41.
PrincipeM. A. (2017). Women in nonviolent movements. United States Institute of Peace.
RezaeedaryakenariB.AsadzadeP. (2020). Learning about principles or prospects for success? An experimental analysis of information support for nonviolent resistance. Research & Politics, 7(2), 2053168020931693. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168020931693
44.
RüdigW.KaryotisG. (2014). Who protests in Greece? Mass opposition to austerity. British Journal of Political Science, 44(3), 487–513. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007123413000112
SapienzaP.ZingalesL.MaestripieriD. (2009). Gender differences in financial risk aversion and career choices are affected by testosterone. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(36), 15268–15273. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0907352106
47.
SchussmanA.SouleS. A. (2005). Process and protest: Accounting for individual protest participation. Social Forces, 84(2), 1083–1108. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2006.0034
48.
SeligsonM. A. (2002). The impact of corruption on regime legitimacy: A comparative study of four Latin American countries. Journal of Politics, 64(2), 408–433. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2508.00132
49.
SharpG. (2005). Waging nonviolent struggle: 20th century practice and 21st century potential. Extending Horizons Books.
50.
SimpsonB.RobbW.FeinbergM. (2018). Does violent protest backfire? Testing a theory of public reactions to activist violence. Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World, 4, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023118803189
51.
SmithT. W. (1984). The polls: Gender and attitudes toward violence. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 48(1), 384–396. https://doi.org/10.1086/268834
52.
TarrowS. (1994). Power in movement: Social movements, collective action and politics. Cambridge University Press.
53.
TaubA.FisherM. (2019). The global protest wave, explained. The New York Times.
54.
TezcurG. M. (2016). Ordinary people, extraordinary risks: Participation in an ethnic rebellion. American Political Science Review, 110(2), 247–264. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055416000150
55.
ThomasE. F.LouisW. R. (2014). When will collective action Be effective? Violent and non-violent protests differentially influence perceptions of legitimacy and efficacy among sympathizers. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(2), 263–276. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213510525
56.
TillyC.TarrowS. G. (2015). Contentious politics. Oxford University Press.
57.
TuckerJ. A (2007). Enough! electoral fraud, collective action problems, and post-communist colored revolutions. Perspectives on Politics, 5(3), 535–551. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1537592707071538
58.
VerhulstJ.WalgraveS. (2009). The first time is the hardest? A cross-national and cross-issue comparison of first-time protest participants. Political Behavior, 31(3), 455–484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-008-9083-8
59.
WasowO. (2020). Agenda seeding: How 1960s black protests moved elites, public opinion and voting. American Political Science Review. OnlineFirst, 114(3), 638–659. https://doi.org/10.1017/s000305542000009x
60.
WoodE. J. (2003). Insurgent collective action and civil war in El Salvador. Cambridge studies in comparative politics. Cambridge University Press.
61.
YablonY. B. (2009). Gender differences in the consistency of attitudes towards peace. Women’s Studies International Forum, 32(4), 305–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2009.05.009
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
