Prior research on individual-level drivers of protest has primarily focused on legal protest. However, less is known about what makes people engage in unlawful protest activities. Building upon previous literature on the collective action dilemma, socialization on violent and high-risk social movements, and political psychology, we expect that illegal protest frequency varies at different levels of authoritarianism. We explore the relationship between authoritarian values and illegal protest by analyzing a two-wave panel survey data gathered in the US. The results of cross-sectional, lagged, and autoregressive ordinary least squares (OLS) regression models show that when controlling for legal protest and other relevant variables in protest behavior, authoritarianism predicts illegal protest following an inverted U-shaped relationship. In other words, average levels of authoritarianism predict more frequent engagement in illegal protest, while this frequency decreases as approaching the poles of the authoritarianism scale.
AdornoT.Frenkel-BrenswikE.LevinsonD. J.SanfordR. N. (2019). The authoritarian personality: Verso.
2.
AllcottH.GentzkowM. (2017). Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31(2), 211–236. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.31.2.211
3.
AltemeyerB. (1998). The “other” authoritarian. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 47–92.
BakerR.BlumbergS. J.BrickJ. M.CouperM. P.CourtrightM.DennisJ. M.DillmanD.FrankelM. R.GarlandP.GrovesR. M.KennedyC.KrosnickJ.LavrakasP. J.LeeS.LinkM.PiekarskiL.RaoK.ThomasR. K.ZahsD., (2010). Research synthesis: AAPOR report on online panels. Public Opinion Quarterly, 74(4), 711–781. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfq048
6.
BarkerD.NalderK.NewhamJ. (2021). Clarifying the ideological asymmetry in public attitudes toward political protest. American Politics Research, 49(2), 157–170. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X20975329
7.
BensonM.RochonT. R. (2004). Interpersonal trust and the magnitude of protest: a micro and macro level approach. Comparative Political Studies, 37(4), 435–457. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414003262900
8.
BosiL.Della PortaD. (2012). Micro-mobilization into armed groups: ideological , instrumental and solidaristic paths. Qualitative Sociology, 35(4), 361–383. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-012-9237-1
9.
CallegaroM.BakerR.BethlehemJ.GoritzA. S.KrosnickJ. A.LavrakasP. J. (2014). Online panel research: history, concepts, applications and a look at the future. https://research.google/pubs/pub42493/
10.
CofféH.BolzendahlC. (2010). Same game, different rules? Gender differences in political participation. Sex Roles, 62(5–6), 318–333. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9729-y
11.
DahlV.StattinH. (2014). Beyond the limits: involvement in illegal political activities. European Political Science Review, 8(1), 125–145. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773914000435
12.
DaltonR.Van SickleA.WeldonS. (2010). The individual-institutional nexus of protest behaviour. British Journal of Political Science, 40(1), 51–73.
13.
Della PortaD. (1995). Social movements, political violence and the state: A compartative analysis of Italy and Germany: Cambridge University Press.
14.
Della PortaD. (2005). Deliberation in movement: why and how to study deliberative democracy and social movements. Acta Politica, 40(3), 336–350. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ap.5500116
15.
Della PortaD. (2013). Clandestine political violence: Cambridge University Press.
Della PortaD.TarrowS. G. (1986). Unwanted children: political violence and the cycle of protest in Italy. European Journal of Political Research, 14(5–6), 607–632.
18.
DianiM. (2000). Simmel to rokkan and beyond: towards a network theory of (new) social movements. European Journal of Social Theory, 3(4), 387–406.
19.
DiGraziaJ. (2014). Individual protest participation in the United States: conventional and unconventional activism. Social Science Quarterly, 95(1), 111–131. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12048
20.
DuckittJ.BizumicB.KraussS. W.HeledE. (2010). A tripartite approach to right-wing authoritarianism: the authoritarianism-conservatism-traditionalism model. Political Psychology, 31(5), 685–715. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2010.00781.x
21.
DyrstadK.HillesundS. (2020). Explaining support for political violence: grievance and perceived opportunity. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 64(9), 1724–1753. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002720909886
22.
EfronB.TibshiraniR. J. (1994). An introduction to the Bootstrap: CRC Press.
23.
FinkelS. E.MullerE. N.OppK.-D. (1989). Personal influence, collective rationality, and mass political action. American Political Science Review, 83(3), 885–903. https://doi.org/10.2307/1962065
24.
FlanaganS. C.LeeA.-R. (2003). The new politics, culture wars, and the authoritarian-libertarian value change in advanced industrial democracies. Comparative Political Studies, 36(3), 235–270. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414002250664
25.
GainousJ.WagnerK. M.AbbottJ. P. (2015). Civic disobedience: does internet use stimulate political unrest in east asia?Journal of Information Technology and Politics, 12(2), 219–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2015.1034909
26.
GavrayC.FournierB.BornM. (2012). Non-conventional/illegal political participation of male and female youths. Human Affairs, 22(3), 405–418. https://doi.org/10.2478/s13374-012-0033-0
27.
Gil de ZúñigaH.DiehlT.Ardévol-AbreuA. (2017). Internal, external, and government political efficacy: effects on news use, discussion, and political participation. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 61(3), 574–596. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2017.1344672
28.
Gil de ZúnigaH.González-GonzálezP.GoyanesM. (2021). Pathways to political persuasion: Linking online, social media, and fake news with political attitud e change through political discussion. American Behavioral Scientist.
29.
Gil de ZúñigaH.GoyanesM. (2021). Fueling civil disobedience in democracy: WhatsApp news use, political knowledge, and illegal political protest. New: media &.
30.
GlasJ. M.TaylorJ. B. (2018). The silver screen and authoritarianism: how popular films activate latent personality dispositions and affect American political attitudes. American Politics Research, 46(2), 246–275. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X17744172
31.
GrassoM. T.GiugniM. (2016). Do issues matter? Anti-austerity protests’ composition, values, and action repertoires compared. Research in Social Movements, Conflicts and Change, 39, 31–58. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0163-786X20160000039002
32.
GrassoM. T.GiugniM. (2019). Political values and extra-institutional political participation: the impact of economic redistributive and social libertarian preferences on protest behaviour. International Political Science Review, 40(4), 470–485. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512118780425
33.
GuttingR. S. (2020). Contentious activities, disrespectful protesters: effect of protest context on protest support and mobilization across ideology and authoritarianism. Political Behavior, 42(3), 865–890. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-018-09523-8
34.
HetheringtonM. J.SuhayE. (2011). Authoritarianism, threat, and Americans’ support for the war on terror. American Journal of Political Science, 55(3), 546–560. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00514.x
35.
HetheringtonM. J.WeilerJ. D. (2009). Authoritarianism and polarization in American politics: Cambridge University Press.
36.
HolbrookA. L.KrosnickJ. A. (2010). Social desirability bias in voter turnout reports: tests using the item count technique. Public Opinion Quarterly, 74(1), 37–67. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfp065
37.
InglehartR.FlanaganS. C. (1987). Value change in industrial societies. The American Political Science Review, 81(4), 1289–1319.
38.
KirschH.WelzelC. (2019). Democracy misunderstood: authoritarian notions of democracy around the globe. Social Forces, 98(1), 59–91.
39.
KlandermansB. (2004). The demand and supply of participation: social psychological correlates of participation in social movements. In SnowD. A.SouleS. A.KriesiH. (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to social movements (pp. 360–379): Blackwell Publishing Inc.
40.
KlandermansP. G. (2014). Identity politics and politicized identities: identity processes and the dynamics of protest. Political Psychology, 35(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12167
41.
KrumpalI. (2013, June 1). Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: A literature review. Quality and quantity. Kluwer Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-011-9640-9
42.
LehdonvirtaV.OksanenA.RäsänenP.BlankG. (2021). Social media, web, and panel surveys: using non-probability samples in social and policy research. Policy and Internet, 13(1), 134–155. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.238
43.
LeighleyJ. E.NaglerJ. (2013). Who votes now?: Demographics, issues, inequality, and turnout in the United States: Princeton University Press.
44.
MacinnisB.KrosnickJ. A.HoA. S.ChoM. J. (2018). The accuracy of measurements with probability and nonprobability survey samples: replication and extension. Public Opinion Quarterly, 82(4), 707–744. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfy038
45.
McadamD. (1989). The biographical consequences of activism. American Sociological Review, 54(5), 744–760.
46.
NaiA.MaierJ. (2021). Is negative campaigning a matter of taste? Political attacks, incivility, and the moderating role of individual differences. American Politics Research, 49(3), 269–281. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X20965548
NorrisP.InglehartR. (2018). Cultural Backlash Trump, Brexit, and the rise of authoritarian populism: Cambridge University Press.
49.
OlsonM. (2009). The logic of collective action: Harvard University Press.
50.
OppK.-D. (1990). Postmaterialism, collective action, and political protest. American Journal of Political Science, 34(1), 212. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111516
51.
PassiniS. (2017). Different ways of being authoritarian: the distinct effects of authoritarian dimensions on values and prejudice. Political Psychology, 38(1), 73–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12309
52.
PerssonM.SolevidM. (2014). Measuring political participation - testing social desirability bias in a web-survey experiment. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 26(1), 98–112. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edt002
53.
PickardS. (2019). Politics, protest and young people: Political participation and dissent in 21st century Britain: Palgrave Macmillan.
54.
QuintelierE.Van DethJ. W. (2014). Supporting democracy: political participation and political attitudes. Exploring causality using panel data. Political Studies, 62(S1), 153–171. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.12097
55.
RensmannL. (2017). The noisy counter-revolution: understanding the cultural conditions and dynamics of populist politics in Europe in the digital age. Politics and Governance, 5(4), 123–135. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v5i4.1123
56.
RenströmE. A.AspernäsJ.BäckH. (2020). The young protester: the impact of belongingness needs on political engagement. Journal of Youth Studies, 24(6), 781–798. https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2020.1768229
57.
RollerE.WeßelsB. (1996). Contexts of political protest in Western democracies: political organization and modernity. In WeilF. D. (Ed.), Research on Democracy and Society (pp. 91–134): JAI Press.
58.
SchussmanA.SouleS. A. (2005). Process and protest: accounting for individual protest participation. Social Forces, 84(2), 1083–1108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/sof.2006.0034.
59.
TillyC. (1978). From mobilization to revolution: McGraw-Hill.
60.
ValenzuelaS.CorreaT.Gil de ZúñigaH. (2018). Ties, likes, and tweets: using strong and weak ties to explain differences in protest participation across Facebook and twitter use. Political Communication, 35(1), 117–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2017.1334726
Vargas-SalfateS.LiuJ. H.Gil de ZúñigaH. (2020). Right-wing authoritarianism and national identification: the role of democratic context. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 32(2), 318–331. https://doi.org/10.1093/IJPOR/EDZ026
63.
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
64.
WeinerE.FedericoC. M. (2017). Authoritarianism, institutional confidence, and willingness to engage in collective action: a multinational analysis. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(3), 392–406. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216686561
65.
WelzelC.DeutschF. (2012). Emancipative values and non-violent protest: the importance of “ecological” effects. British Journal of Political Science, 42(2), 465–479. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0007123411000421
66.
WelzelC.InglehartR.KlingemannH.-D. (2003). The theory of human development: a cross-cultural analysis. European Journal of Political Research, 42, 341–379. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.00086
67.
WilcoxR. R. (2010). Fundamentals of modern statistical methods: Substantially improving power and accuracy: Springer.
68.
WilliamsonV. (2019). Public ignorance or elitist jargon? Reconsidering Americans’ overestimates of government waste and foreign aid. American Politics Research, 47(1), 152–173. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X18759645
69.
WrightM.CitrinJ. (2011). Saved by the stars and stripes? Images of protest, salience of threat, and immigration attitudes. American Politics Research, 39(2), 323–343. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X10388140
70.
ZavadskayaM.WelzelC. (2015). Subverting autocracy: emancipative mass values in competitive authoritarian regimes. Democratization, 22(6), 1105–1130. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2014.914500
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.
