How does repression influence democratic leaders’ performance in elections? When weighing rights protections against other issues, I expect voters to punish candidates who advocate repression of in-group members but reward candidates who support repression of threatening out-groups. I evaluate the causal effect of repression on vote share using a conjoint experiment among registered voters in the United States. I find that, among those who identify as an in-group with a frequent repression victim, Black Lives Matter (BLM), candidates receive a lower vote share when they support repression of BLM or violent repression against other groups. There is also some evidence that candidates perform worse when they support repression of groups that share a racial identity with the respondent and that threat perception moderates the effect of repression on candidates’ performance. On the other hand, repression typically has an insignificant effect on candidates’ vote share when it is perpetrated against a respondent’s out-group. These results provide important insight to voters’ evaluation of repression at the ballot box.
AbramsonSFKoçakKMagazinnikA (2022) What do we learn about voter preferences from conjoint experiments?American Journal of Political Science66(4): 1008–1020.
2.
Amnesty International (2020) USA: The World Is Watching: Mass Violations by U.S. Police of Black Lives Matter Protesters’ Rights. London: Amnesty International.
3.
AytaçSESchiumeriniLStokesS (2018) Why do people join backlash protests? Lessons from Turkey. Journal of Conflict Resolution62(6): 1205–1228.
4.
BansakKHainmuellerJHopkinsDJ, et al. (2021a) Conjoint survey experiments. In: DruckmanJNGreenDP (eds) Cambridge Handbook of Advances in Experimental Political Science. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 19–41.
5.
BansakKHainmuellerJHopkinsDJ, et al. (2021b) Beyond the breaking point? Survey satisficing in conjoint experiments. Political Science Research and Methods9(1): 53–71.
6.
BansakKHainmuellerJHopkinsDJ, et al. (2022) Using conjoint experiments to analyze elections: The essential role of the average marginal component effect. Political Analysis31(4): 500–518.
7.
BlattmanC (2009) From violence to voting: War and political participation in Uganda. American Political Science Review103(2): 231–247.
CingranelliDFilippovM (2010) Electoral rules and incentives to protect human rights. Journal of Politics72(1): 243–257.
10.
ConradCRCrocoSEGomezBT, et al. (2018a) Threat perception and American support for torture. Political Behavior40: 989–1009.
11.
ConradCRHillDWJrMooreWH (2018b) Torture and the limits of democratic institutions. Journal of Peace Research55(1): 3–17.
12.
CordellR (2021) The political costs of abusing human rights: International cooperation in extraordinary rendition. Journal of Conflict Resolution65(2–3): 255–282.
13.
CordellR (2025) Unpacking the role of in-group bias in public opinion on human rights violations. American Journal of Political Science. Epub ahead of print, 20 June. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12995.
14.
DalySZ (2019) Voting for victors: Why violent actors win postwar elections. World Politics71(4): 747–805.
15.
DavenportC (2007a) State repression and political order. Annual Review of Political Science10: 1–27.
16.
DavenportC (2007b) State Repression and the Domestic Democratic Peace. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17.
DavenportCSouleSAArmstrongDA (2011) Protesting while Black? The differential policing of American activism, 1960 to 1990. American Sociological Review76(1): 152–178.
18.
DavisDW (1995) Exploring black political intolerance. Political Behavior17: 1–22.
19.
DavisDW (2007) Negative Liberty: Public Opinion and the Terrorist Attacks on America. New York: Russel Sage Foundation.
20.
DavisDWSilverBD (2004) Civil liberties v. security: Public opinion in the context of the terrorist attacks on America. American Journal of Political Science48(1): 28–46.
21.
DietrichNCrabtreeC (2019) Domestic demand for human rights: Free speech and the freedom–security trade-off. International Studies Quarterly63(2): 346–353.
22.
EdwardsPArnonD (2021) Violence on many sides: Framing effects on protest and support for repression. British Journal of Political Science51(2): 488–506.
23.
GerberASGreenDP (2012) Field Experiments: Design, Analysis, and Interpretation. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
24.
GoldsteinRJ (1978) Political Repression in Modern America, from 1870 to Present. Cambridge, MA: G. K. Hall.
25.
GrahamMHSvolikMW (2020) Democracy in America? Partisanship, polarization, and the robustness of support for democracy in the United States. American Political Science Review114(2): 392–409.
26.
Gutiérrez-RomeroRLeBasA (2020) Does electoral violence affect vote choice and willingness to vote? Conjoint analysis of a vignette experiment. Journal of Peace Research57(1): 77–92.
27.
HainmuellerJHopkinsDJYamamotoT (2014) Causal inference in conjoint analysis: Understanding multidimensional choices via stated preference experiments. Political Analysis22(1): 1–30.
28.
HaschkeP (2018) Human Rights in Democracies. Abingdon: Routledge.
29.
HoriuchiYMarkovichZYamamotoT (2022) Does conjoint analysis mitigate social desirability bias?Political Analysis30(4): 535–549.
30.
HuddyLFeldmanSTaberC, et al. (2005) Threat, anxiety, and support of antiterrorism policies. American Journal of Political Science49(3): 593–608.
31.
JacksonJFineABradfordB, et al. (2023) Social identity and support for defunding the police in the aftermath of George Floyd’s murder. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations26(4): 833–858.
32.
Jenkins-SmithHCHerronKG (2009) Rock and a hard place: Public willingness to trade civil rights and liberties for greater security. Politics and Policy37(5): 1095–1123.
33.
KearnsEMYoungJ (2020) Tortured Logic: Why Some Americans Support the Use of Torture in Counterterrorism. New York: Columbia University Press.
KomisarchikMSenMVelezYR (2022) The political consequences of ethnically targeted incarceration: Evidence from Japanese–American internment during WWII. Journal of Politics84(3): 1497–1514.
36.
LeeperTJHoboltSBTilleyJ (2020) Measuring subgroup preferences in conjoint experiments. Political Analysis28(2): 207–221.
37.
LevitskySZiblattD (2018) How Democracies Die. New York: Crown Publishing Group.
38.
LupuNPeisakhinL (2017) The legacy of political violence across generations. American Journal of Political Science61(4): 836–851.
39.
ManekinDMittsT (2022) Effective for whom? Ethnic identity and nonviolent resistance. American Political Science Review116(1): 161–120.
40.
MetcalfeCPickettJT (2021) Public fear of protesters and support for protest policing: An experimental test of two theoretical models. Criminology60(1): 60–89.
41.
MorrisonK (2024) Named and shamed: International advocacy and public support for repressive leaders. Journal of Conflict Resolution68(2–3): 294–321.
42.
NugentER (2020) The psychology of repression and polarization. World Politics72(2): 291–334.
43.
PiazzaJA (2015) Terrorist suspect religious identity and public support for harsh interrogation and detention practices. Political Psychology36(6): 667–690.
RichardsDL (1999) Perilous proxy: Human rights and the presence of national elections. Social Science Quarterly80(4): 648–665.
46.
RichardsDLMorrillMMAndersonMR (2012) Some psychosocial correlates of US citizen support for torture. Nordic Journal of Human Rights30(1): 63–95.
47.
RitterEH (2014) Policy disputes, political survival, and the onset and severity of state repression. Journal of Conflict Resolution58(1): 143–168.
48.
RosenzweigSC (2021) Dangerous disconnect: Voter backlash, elite misperception, and the costs of violence as an electoral tactic. Political Behavior43: 1731–1754.
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.
