As election season comes and goes, so does the fear of political violence. Depending on the candidates, positions, and party polarization, security experts adjust measures of threat assessment and management accordingly. We are currently facing a time of high alert, within an atmosphere where violence is not only considered by some to be acceptable, but necessary. Some of these political activists are also armed. Research suggests some potential avenues of recognition and response to reduce the threat of violence.
Source: Image by shawn1 from Pixabay
Violence and Voting
Lily Syfers and colleagues (2024) studied the risk of political violence in the United States, using the 2022 midterm elections as an example.[i] They begin by acknowledging the increased risk of political violence around national elections, implicating the role of leadership in creating perceived group cohesion that may inspire members to believe it is appropriate to use violence against political rivals. They found that constituents who perceived their political leader as prototypical in terms of accurately representing who they considered themselves to be increased feelings of cohesion, which predicted willingness to fight, even to the death, to defend their in-group against outsiders.
Syfers and colleagues note that this relationship is strengthened when group members believe they are subjected to unfair discrimination in terms of possessing resources and wealth compared to other societal groups. Their findings were consistent across two correlational samples they studied, one of which was the 2022 United States midterm election.
Syfers and colleagues note that their findings reflect what they describe as a social identity-based view of leadership style where leaders who are viewed as prototypical can use what they describe as “identity entrepreneurship” to heighten a sense of group cohesion by unifying members through a narrative of deprivation that can provoke political violence through perceived unfavorable comparisons between political groups.
Preventing Partisan Violence
Joseph S. Mernyk and colleagues (2022)[ii] acknowledged that prior research supported the increasing concern over the likelihood of large-scale political violence in the US, as studies reveal the number of Americans who support the use of violence against political rivals. They found support for partisan violence to be based partially on highly exaggerated perceptions of the support for violence among political rivals. Fortunately, they also found that correcting these inaccurate meta-perceptions can reduce such support.
The research by Mernyk and colleagues was based on data collected before and after the 2020 United States presidential election and the 2021 attack on the US Capitol. They found that both Democrats and Republicans overestimated rival partisan support for violence as well as willingness to use violence in furtherance of political goals. Specifically, estimates of inaccuracy ranged from 245 percent to 442 percent higher than actual levels. Fortunately, they also found that providing information to correct these misperceptions decreased support for violence by 34 percent and willingness to use violence by 44 percent—a result that was found to be enduring one month later. They conclude that correcting partisan misperceptions has the potential to reduce both support for and willingness to engage in partisan violence.
The goal is to interrupt the narrative that political violence is acceptable in any form by any party. Understanding the processes that contribute to the willingness to view violence as a part of the political “new normal” can help authorities strategize how to dispel such views, thwart politically motivated aggression, and protect the public.
