IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jocore/v67y2023i9p1731-1756.html

Tolerant Solidarity With Violent Protesters: Evidence From a Survey Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Samson Yuen

Abstract

Conventional wisdom holds that violent protests alienate the public. But violence could also create tactical disagreement among protesters and weaken their unity. So, to what extent does protesters’ use of violence erode intra-movement cohesion? This article argues that protesters can preserve cohesion by falsifying their private moral preferences and restraining themselves from public denunciation, an act which I characterize as ‘tolerant solidarity’. Based on a survey experiment on participants of Hong Kong’s 2019 protests, I examine how their private and public preferences toward violence change in response to three divisive conditions: protesters taking the initiative, violence causing physical harm, and violence targeting counter-protesters. Results show while these divisive conditions make respondents more likely to morally disapprove violence, the effects are weaker in their support for public denunciation, an indication that their private preferences are partially concealed. Findings contribute to the study of contentious politics by advancing a more complex understanding of movement cohesion when protester violence is involved.

Suggested Citation

  • Samson Yuen, 2023. "Tolerant Solidarity With Violent Protesters: Evidence From a Survey Experiment," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 67(9), pages 1731-1756, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:jocore:v:67:y:2023:i:9:p:1731-1756
    DOI: 10.1177/00220027231154451
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00220027231154451
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/00220027231154451?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jacob M. Montgomery & Brendan Nyhan & Michelle Torres, 2018. "How Conditioning on Posttreatment Variables Can Ruin Your Experiment and What to Do about It," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 62(3), pages 760-775, July.
    2. John V. Kane & Jason Barabas, 2019. "No Harm in Checking: Using Factual Manipulation Checks to Assess Attentiveness in Experiments," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 63(1), pages 234-249, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jimin Pyo & Michael G. Maxfield, 2021. "Cognitive Effects of Inattentive Responding in an MTurk Sample," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(4), pages 2020-2039, July.
    2. Pierluigi Conzo & Andrea Gallice & Juan S. Morales & Margaret Samahita & Laura K. Taylor, 2021. "Can Hearts Change Minds? Social media Endorsements and Policy Preferences," Carlo Alberto Notebooks 641, Collegio Carlo Alberto.
    3. Lago, Manuel E. & Samahita, Margaret & Doyle, Orla, 2025. "Unraveling gender norms: Social and personal norms in the preferential promotion of women," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    4. Christoph Dworschak, 2024. "Bias mitigation in empirical peace and conflict studies: A short primer on posttreatment variables," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 61(3), pages 462-476, May.
    5. Paul Fesenfeld, Lukas & Maier, Maiken & Brazzola, Nicoletta & Stolz, Niklas & Sun, Yixian & Kachi, Aya, 2023. "How information, social norms, and experience with novel meat substitutes can create positive political feedback and demand-side policy change," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    6. Maude Lavanchy & Patrick Reichert & Jayanth Narayanan & Krishna Savani, 2023. "Applicants’ Fairness Perceptions of Algorithm-Driven Hiring Procedures," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 188(1), pages 125-150, November.
    7. Han Il Chang, 2021. "A side effect of a broker's expertise in clientelism: A lab‐experimental study," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(3), pages 393-410, July.
    8. Wagon, Felix & Fridgen, Gilbert & Tiefenbeck, Verena, 2024. "Shaping stable support: Leveraging digital feedback interventions to elicit socio-Political acceptance of renewable energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    9. Hagenbach, Jeanne & Jacquemet, Nicolas & Sternal, Philipp, 2025. "The motivated memory of noise," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 257-275.
    10. Goedde-Menke, Michael & Ingermann, Peter-Hendrik, 2024. "Loan officer specialization and credit defaults," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    11. Schuessler, Julian, 2024. "Causal analysis with observational data," OSF Preprints wam94, Center for Open Science.
    12. Aretz, Benjamin, 2022. "The short- and long-term effects of the Great Recession on late-life depression in Europe: The role of area deprivation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 294(C).
    13. Zhang, Yingheng & Li, Haojie & Ren, Gang, 2025. "Analysing the role of traffic volume as mediator in transport policy evaluation with causal mediation analysis and targeted learning," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    14. Sangyong Son & Jong Hee Park, 2023. "Nonproliferation Information and Attitude Change: Evidence From South Korea," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 67(6), pages 1095-1127, July.
    15. Akisato Suzuki & Djordje Stefanovic & Neophytos Loizides, 2021. "Displacement and the expectation of political violence: Evidence from Bosnia," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 38(5), pages 561-579, September.
    16. Ngoma, Hambulo & Hailu, Amare Teklay & Kabwe, Stephen & Angelsen, Arild, 2020. "Pay, talk or ‘whip’ to conserve forests: Framed field experiments in Zambia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    17. Salil Benegal & Jon Green, 2024. "Cost sensitivity, partisan cues, and support for the Green New Deal," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 14(4), pages 763-775, December.
    18. Quintelier, Katinka J.P. & Vock, Marlene, 2024. "The effect of mixing stakeholder value and profit on cooperation: You can't have your cake and eat it too," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 255-265.
    19. Carlos Jalali & Patrícia Silva & Patrício Costa & Filipe Falcão, 2025. "Which cues matter: The effect of content cues on European Union support," European Union Politics, , vol. 26(4), pages 736-758, December.
    20. Ingar Haaland & Christopher Roth & Johannes Wohlfart, 2023. "Designing Information Provision Experiments," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 61(1), pages 3-40, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:jocore:v:67:y:2023:i:9:p:1731-1756. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://pss.la.psu.edu/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.