The sword or the plowshare: Conflict and third‐party groups' reaction to violent versus nonviolent resistance

Abstract

AbstractAround the world, movements for justice or social change struggle with the question of whether to use nonviolent or violent protest strategies. While research suggests that nonviolent strategies may be more successful than violent ones, people's preferences and support for different strategies may depend on their specific role in the conflict. We tested this in Study 1 in the context of the Kurdish question in Turkey (N = 320), and we found that Turks and Americans supported nonviolent movements more than violent movements, while Kurds were equally supportive of both. Study 2 (N = 192) replicated Study 1 and investigated whether the preference for nonviolent strategies among the third‐party group was dependent on the perceivers' specific preferred outcomes in the conflict. We found that, in the context of the Kurdish question in Syria, third‐party Americans still supported nonviolent movements more than violent movements regardless of their preferred outcomes, although the more that they preferred that Kurds would win the conflict, the more supportive they were of both nonviolent and violent protest movements. These studies suggest that the preference for nonviolent strategies may depend on people's role in the conflict, with important implications for addressing conflict needs and conflict resolution.