Why people perceive protest violence differently: A cross-national survey experiment in the US, Taiwan, and Hong Kong

What the paper says

Scholars and activists have long debated whether violent protest tactics help or hinder social movements. Recent research suggests, however, that whether a protest is perceived as violent is often a matter of subjective interpretation rather than objective assessment. Building on this perspective, we examine how perceptions of protest violence vary across political contexts by comparing three societies with distinct protest histories and institutions: the United States, Taiwan, and Hong Kong. Using survey experiments conducted in each society, we investigate how protest tactics, political alignment, and outcomes of police–protester conflict shape public perceptions of violence. We find that these factors strongly predict violence perceptions in the United States, apply only partially in Taiwan, and largely fail to explain perceptions in Hong Kong. In particular, U.S. respondents are much more likely than Taiwanese or Hong Kong respondents to view breaking into a legislative building as violent. Political alignment shapes violence perceptions in the United States and Taiwan but not in Hong Kong, while injuries to police officers increase perceived violence most strongly among U.S. respondents. These perceptions, in turn, influence individuals’ willingness to support protests. Taken together, the findings highlight the limits of U.S.-centric theories of protest violence and underscore the importance of historical and institutional context in shaping how protest actions are interpreted across societies.