Why We Misjudge Support for Political Violence

"Imagine a college rally where a controversial speaker is shut down by angry protesters. In the scuffle, someone in the audience gets hit with a sign. If you heard this story, how would you react? Would you condemn the protesters for trampling free speech, or applaud them for silencing hate? Would you feel sympathy for the injured attendee, or dismiss their pain as deserved?"

"You don't have to look far to see this dynamic in real life. When right-wing speaker Charlie Kirk and Democratic state legislator Melissa Hortman were shot in separate incidents, leaders initially condemned political violence across the board. But quickly, the public conversation shifted to finger-pointing. Commentators demanded: Why didn't you denounce violence when our side was under attack? The implication: compassion is conditional, depending on whether the victim is "us" or "them.""

"But here's what's important: the perception that political opponents condone violence is wildly exaggerated. In one study, partisans estimated that nearly 40 percent of the other side would consider political assassination justifiable. The real number? One to two percent. That's still too many, but it's a far cry from what most of us imagine. This misperception is fueled by a psychological bias called Motive Attribution Asymmetry-the tendency to see ourselves"

People often overestimate opponents' support for political violence, with partisans estimating nearly 40% would justify assassination while actual rates are only one to two percent. High-empathy individuals tend to exhibit partisan bias, showing greater compassion for their own side and dismissing opponents' suffering. Lower-empathy individuals respond more evenly to cross-partisan harm. Public reactions to violent incidents quickly shift from universal condemnation to reciprocal accusation about unequal denunciation. Motive Attribution Asymmetry causes observers to attribute noble motives to their side and sinister motives to opponents, inflating perceived condoning of violence and fueling political conflict.

Read at Psychology Today