Former President Donald Trump was giving a speech in Butler, Pennsylvania, six minutes into his speech on July 13 when a lone gunman standing on the roof of a nearby building opened fire, wounding him and two others and killing a fourth man.
The assassination attempt was the culmination of years of warnings by elected officials that they faced an escalation in threats of violence. Studies have documented growing hostility toward mayors, state senators, state House candidates, and members of Congress.
Our interviews with elected officials and surveys by other researchers also show that threats of violence can have dire consequences for democracy, as victims may be more likely to stay away from controversial policies, meet less with their constituencies, not seek higher office, or retire from politics.
Since the assassination attempt, many political observers have expressed concern that the event could increase public support for political violence. Studies of mass shootings suggest that intense media coverage can normalize such acts and even lead to copycat behavior. If this is also true of political violence, it may explain why so many elected officials told us they feared that sharing their experiences publicly could fuel more violence.
We tested whether exposure to news about violence targeting politicians from the same party or opponents increases citizens' tendency to perceive political violence as justified.
Exposure to political violence does not make it contagious.
Results from two experiments we conducted in 2023 and 2024 and a daily survey we have conducted since May 2024 suggest that exposure to real or hypothetical stories of violence against politicians does not increase the average citizen’s appetite for violence but may reduce it.
In our experiments, we randomly assigned participants to read stories about a senator from the same party or from a different party. These stories were not real but were inspired by real events.
Some participants read about a meeting the senator attended with opposing party constituents or a peaceful protest at his office. Both stories reflect democratic means of political participation. However, other participants read about a protest in which the senator was threatened or in which protesters resorted to violence, resulting in serious injuries.
Reading about violence against one party did not make people more likely to support political violence. It also made them less likely to justify political violence. These are important findings, given concerns about igniting a cycle of violence.
The attempted assassination of Trump gave us an opportunity to consider how partisans of both the same party and those opposed to him react to a real-world event involving a person about whom people on both sides have strong feelings.
Since our survey question about whether political violence is justified has been asked continuously since last May, we can test whether people's responses differ before and after an assassination attempt.
We found that Democrats and Republicans were less likely to justify political violence after an assassination attempt. This difference is statistically significant but small. Crucially, this means that the desire for political violence did not increase in the weeks following the assassination attempt, and may have even declined slightly. This is good news for democracy.
In addition, we asked people in a separate question why they thought government officials might seek to speak publicly about their experiences with political violence.
We found that since the assassination attempt, respondents have become more likely to believe that public officials speak out about threats and violence out of genuine concern for their safety, rather than for more selfish reasons.
These patterns give us some optimism that elected officials are able to share their experiences and that the public will respond, not with increased support for violence, but with recognition and perhaps empathy.
One thing our experiences have in common with the real-world response to the attempted assassination of Trump is that the response of party elites did not include incitement to further violence.
In our experiments, 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 the violence.
In addition to research showing that what party leaders say about violence matters, our research suggests that exposure to stories of political violence does not lead partisans to view violence as justified. Instead, it may reduce support for violence when people are confronted with the true human cost of such events. However, this may depend on how trusted party leaders respond and whether they actively promote peaceful coexistence and condemn violence.
Exercising restraint is essential to preserving democratic institutions, and during this contentious election cycle, citizens and leaders alike should heed that lesson.
Alexandra Velindra is an associate professor of political science and psychology at the University of Illinois Chicago. Paul Teese and Andrea Manning are graduate students at the University of Illinois Chicago. Laurel Harbridge Young is a professor of political science at Northwestern University.
The opinions and ideas expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Chicago Sun-Times or any of its affiliates.
The Sun-Times welcomes letters to the editor and editorials. See our guidelines.
Get opinion content in your inbox.
