Turning a blind eye? Understanding citizens’ tolerance for protester violence

When do ordinary citizens find protester violence permissible? Although research shows that public support for protests typically decreases when protesters use violent tactics, we argue that certain situations elicit greater toleration or endorsement of such tactics among bystanders. We examine the question with a preregistered survey experiment that randomizes protester tactics, police responses, and issue frames, while distinguishing between respondents’ private and public attitudes toward protesters’ actions. Our findings show that citizens are more likely to endorse protester violence—neither privately nor publicly criticizing protesters—when it follows police repression than when police remain restrained, as it elicits moral justification for violent tactics. Conversely, when citizens support protesters’ goals, they are somewhat more likely to tolerate violence—withholding public criticism despite private disapproval—although this effect is less pronounced. The results show how state repression can convert latent criticism into tacit acceptance, showing how people can sometimes “turn a blind eye” to protester violence. The distinction between public and private attitudes toward contentious political actions helps explain why violent flanks sometimes thrive despite prevailing norms favoring non-violence, and cautions policymakers against aggressive policing that may backfire by legitimizing violent escalation.