Reducing Support for Political Violence in the United States

• In Event: Building Peace and Reducing Violence

Abstract

Acts of politically-motivated violence in the U.S. have markedly increased since 2017. Further, support for political violence in the U.S. has remained alarmingly high. Using data from two national surveys implemented by YouGov (n = 2,000) and Qualtrics (n=2,000) in 2023, we employ three randomly assigned survey experiments with a control group to reduce levels of support for political violence in the U.S. Academics and practitioners have developed many experimental and field-tested interventions designed to reduce radicalization, support for partisan violence and reduce anti-democratic attitudes. However, some interventions are more effective at reducing violence/polarization than others (Voelkel et al., 2022).



The first survey experiment explores whether presidents' unifying rhetoric, without the potentially polarizing label of the president that said it, can help reduce affective polarization by reminding Americans of their shared identity. By presenting quotes without attribution in a low stakes “quiz” about who said these, we show respondents that they get some things wrong about politics without directly confronting respondents’ deeply held views. This may open the door for respondents to acknowledge that they might be wrong about other things. We then ask respondents if the other party gets things wrong about them and follow it up with do they get things wrong about the other party, which should trigger sentiments of reciprocity and fairness. Then, they are asked to choose a series of positive words that apply to the opposite political party and to members of both parties. We expect that those who experience this intervention will have lower levels of partisan animosity and express less support for political violence than those in the control group.



In the second survey experiment, respondents are asked to respond to a set of questions about partisan control of government and the use of rules to disadvantage the other political party. Respondents are also asked a series of questions about their beliefs pertaining to the other political party. This experiment reminds people that: 1) partisan control shifts; 2) the value of fairness and impartiality when it comes to governance; and 3) shows people that members of the other political party are less extreme than they might think. Thus, we anticipate that those respondents who receive these reminders are less likely to support political violence, believe that political violence is justified to achieve political objectives, or the threats of these actions than those in control group.



Respondents experience the redirect method for the third survey experiment. In this method, respondents indicate their opinion on one or more political issues. Depending on their responses, they are shown an article from the side opposing their own view. This method has been used as a way to mitigate support for extremist groups like ISIS and for white supremacy online. In today's digital echo chambers, individuals are often exposed only to viewpoints that mirror their own. Even if factually accurate, such information could be misleading and present a biased picture of the issue at hand. Based on such information, opinions crystallize and attitudes harden. The Redirect Method exposes participants to an alternative viewpoint on current political issues. A growing body of literature speaks to the utility of counter-messaging. It is expected that exposure to counter-narratives will broaden respondents’ horizons and potentially reduce partisan animosity and support for political violence.



This study employs vastly different survey experiments with very dissimilar causal logics and mechanisms. While we anticipate that respondent exposure to each experiment will lead to some reduction in support for violence, the juxtaposition of three very different interventions will allow us to compare the relative efficacy of each intervention. This, in turn, may help us identify which interventions have a higher likelihood of leading to attitudinal and behavioral changes that reduce support for violence.

Authors

• Ken Moffett, Independent researcher

• Suranjan Weeraratne, Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville

• Laurie L. Rice, Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville