Even before the pair attempted to assassinate former President Donald Trump, national security experts and law enforcement officials were warning that the United States needed a plan to counter the possibility of political violence on Election Day. Ta.
Now, in the final week of the campaign, researchers have just released new findings about the social lives of people who support the use of political violence and are more likely to use it themselves.
The results, based on a nationally representative survey of more than 8,000 Americans, may seem counterintuitive. Fundamentally, people who accept the idea that political violence is justified tend to be at the other end of the social spectrum. Those who said they had no strong personal or professional ties were 2.4 times more likely to say political violence was justified than those who said they had one to four close relationships. Ta. This is not necessarily surprising given the recent history of mass shooters and politically motivated assailants being described as loners in widespread networks.
But what’s strange is that people with many close connections are slightly more likely to support political violence. Those who said they had a strong relationship of 50 or more were 1.2 times more likely to support political violence.
And this is where we should be a little concerned. People with no social connections were no more likely, on average, to say they would personally be willing to commit political violence, even if they believed it was justified. But what about people who have many close relationships? They were 1.5 times more likely than others to say they themselves were willing to commit acts of violence for political purposes.
What is happening to highly socially connected people? Julia Schleimer, the researcher who led the study, told Vox in an email that compared to people with very few close ties, the 50+ cohort is white, has higher incomes, and is slightly more educated. He said they tend to be older. But that’s also true of middle-class demographics (reported social connections between 10 and 49 people), who were not particularly open to the idea of political violence.
In other words, there were no demographic factors for the groups the researchers looked at. “One of the limitations of this study is that we don’t know much about the nature and characteristics of people’s social networks, but this is probably a very important area for future research,” Schleimer said. However, previous research has shown that “people with very large social networks, when those networks are characterized by antisocial norms, outgroup contempt, and extreme views, are more likely to experience political violence.” “This gives us reason to expect that the risk of exposure may be higher,” she says, especially when social networks are homogeneous. These groups, which are sometimes formed in person, were formed in the days after Donald Trump’s loss in the 2020 presidential election and are similar to the Proud Boys and others who stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6. An increasing number of cases, such as far-right groups, are also developing online.
The study, conducted by the Violence Prevention Research Program (VPRP) at the University of California, Davis, is based on data released earlier this year about Americans’ beliefs about political violence. The good news from early research is that, in general, a majority of Americans oppose political violence under any circumstances. The more worrying news? A minority of Americans accept the idea that political violence is sometimes justified.
“Personally, I think it’s very unlikely that large-scale political violence will occur. Given the data for 2024, I feel more optimistic about that prediction,” said the program’s director. Dr. Galen Wintemute told Vox this summer. “But could there be sporadic outbreaks, especially if battleground states remain so close together? Absolutely. Could there be attempts to intimidate election officials? Absolutely.”
The Violence Prevention Research Program applies public health approaches to issues such as gun violence and political violence. In other words, we seek interventions to stop violence from occurring. Schleimer said the new findings suggest it is important to develop approaches that target both extremely lonely people and people with deep connections, for example to extremist ideological groups. He said there was. For lonely people, social skills training, community centers, cultural activities, and more open and accessible cities can all help. And both groups benefit from anti-violence messages from influential celebrities and social media. For socially connected people, it’s especially helpful to have someone they trust who can help them open up to different perspectives and support them as they begin to challenge their ideological beliefs.
The idea sounds simple enough, but the researchers’ previous work suggests that getting someone to reject political violence is probably easier than you think. “For would-be fighters, if they are asked to quit by their family, friends or some part of the media, the vast majority will switch,” Wintemute told Vox. “We can create a climate of non-acceptance of political violence, and then we can hope that it will work.” In that respect, their findings are encouraging. But with so many guns, in a highly divided country, can we reach all the people who could be exposed to political violence? That’s the difficult part.
I read 1 article last month
At Vox, we believe everyone can help make sense of and shape our complex world. Our mission is to create clear, accessible journalism that inspires understanding and action.
If you share our vision, please consider supporting our work by becoming a Vox Member. Your support allows Vox to provide a stable, independent source of funding for our journalism. If you’re not ready to become a member, making even a small donation means a lot to support our sustainable model of journalism.
Thank you for joining our community.
Swati Sharma
vox editor in chief
