How the Public Views Politician Responses to Violent Threats: The Role of Gender

• In Event: Political Violence, Threats, and Political Behavior

Abstract

In recent years, angry constituents have increasingly expressed their discontent with public officials through threats of violence. With this trend, it has become more common for politicians to publicize their concerns, discussing the impact of violent rhetoric with their constituents and the media. Some politicians have openly disclosed the fear that these incidents have instilled, noting the negative toll that they have taken on their mental wellbeing. Other officials have chosen to give the appearance of strength, stating that they remain determined to perform their jobs as usual in the aftermath of violent threats. We fielded an original survey experiment to understand the ways in which a politician’s response to violent threats can affect public tolerance for and perceived severity of these threats as well as support for the politician in the aftermath of the threat. We posit, after experiencing a threat of violence, politicians can either (1) express their personal fear/concern regarding the threat, (2) express their strength/resilience to the threat, or (3) not comment on the threat. We also investigate which strategy is most effective for women politicians, who often face heightened threats. Overall, our study provides insight into how elected officials might best respond to threats and harassment, with additional attention paid to gender differences in strategy effectiveness.

Authors

• Kishan Bhakta, Rice University

• Maranda Joyce, Rice University

• Tabitha Koch, Rice University

• Jonathan Homola, UCLA