Former President Donald Trump was six minutes into his speech in Butler, Pennsylvania, July 13 when a lone gunman perched on a nearby rooftop shot and injured him and two others and killed a fourth man.
The assassination attempt was the culmination of years of warnings from elected officials that they faced an escalation of threats of violence. Studies have documented the rising hostility against mayors, state senators, state house candidates, and Congress members.
Our interviews with elected officials and other researchers’ surveys also show that threats of violence can have significant consequences for democracy since victims may be more likely to shy away from controversial policies, meet less often with constituents, not seek higher office or retire from politics.
Since the assassination attempt, many political observers have worried that this event may increase citizens’ support for political violence. Studies of mass shootings suggest that extensive media coverage can normalize such acts and even lead to copycat behavior. If this is also true for political violence, it can explain why many elected officials told us they fear that publicly sharing their experiences may fuel more violence.
We tested whether exposure to news about violence targeting co-partisan or opposing politicians increased citizens’ propensity to perceive political violence as justified.
Exposure to political violence doesn’t make it contagious
Results from two experiments we conducted in 2023-2024 and a daily poll fielded since May 2024 suggest that exposure to actual or hypothetical stories of violence perpetrated against politicians does not increase the average citizen’s appetite for violence and may even reduce it.
In our experiments, we randomly assigned participants to read stories about a senator who was co-partisan (member of the same party) or out-partisan (member of a different party). These stories were not true but modeled on real-life events.
Some respondents read about the senator having a civil meeting with the opposing party constituents or a non-violent protest at his office. Both stories reflect democratic means of political engagement. However, other respondents read about a protest where threats were made against the senator or where the protesters turned violent, seriously injuring him.
Reading about violence against a co-partisan did not make people any more likely to support political violence. And it made them less likely to rationalize political violence. These are crucial findings, given concerns about igniting a cycle of violence.
The assassination attempt against Trump gave us leverage to look at how co-partisans and opposing partisans react to a real-world event involving a person for whom people on both sides feel strongly.
Because a question in our survey about whether political violence is justified has been asked continually since May, we can test if people’s responses differed before and after the assassination attempt.
We find that after the assassination attempt, both Democrats and Republicans were less likely to justify political violence. This difference is statistically significant but small. Critically, this means that the appetite for political violence did not increase in the weeks after the attempted assassination, and it may have declined a bit. This is good news for democracy.
Furthermore, in a separate question, we asked people why they think public officials may seek to speak publicly about their experiences with political violence.
We find that since the assassination attempt, respondents have been significantly more likely to believe that public officials are speaking out about threats and violence out of genuine concern for their safety, not for more self-serving reasons.
These patterns give us some optimism that elected officials can share their experiences and that the public will respond, not with heightened support for violence, but with recognition and perhaps empathy.
One thing that our experiments and the real-world response to the assassination attempt against Trump have in common is that the response from partisan elites did not involve incitement of further violence.
In our experiments, the articles presented the events without any commentary from the victim. In the case of the assassination attempt, most leaders in both parties, including Trump himself, spoke out to condemn violence.
Combined with research showing that what partisan leaders say about violence matters, our research suggests that exposure to stories of political violence does not drive partisans to view violence as justified. Instead, it may reduce support for violence as people come face-to-face with the true human cost of such events. However, this may depend on how trusted partisan leaders respond and whether they actively work to promote peaceful co-existence and denounce violence.
Exercising restraint is key to the preservation of democratic institutions, and during this contentious election cycle, both citizens and leaders should heed that lesson.
Alexandra Filindra is an associate professor of political science and psychology at University of Illinois Chicago. Paul Teas and Andrea Manning are graduate students at UIC. Laurel Harbridge-Yong is a professor of political science at Northwestern University.
The views and opinions expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Chicago Sun-Times or any of its affiliates.
The Sun-Times welcomes letters to the editor and op-eds. See our guidelines.
Get Opinions content delivered to your inbox.