“Killing the Messenger”: Public Perceptions of Nonviolent Protest

  • Amy S. Hubbard
Part of the Recent Research in Psychology book series (PSYCHOLOGY)


No one would be surprised to hear that people who do not like what protesters have to say are likely to reject the protesters as people as well as their cause. After all, “killing the messenger” because he or she brings us bad news is a common enough phrase. It is to be expected that people angry about antinuclear weapons protests in their neighborhood would reject both the messenger and the message. At the same time, we might expect that the protesters’ commitment to nonviolence and their nonviolent tactics would be clear to everyone, no matter what their political beliefs. So many of the protesters at the Seneca Army Depot may have thought when they attended rallies or participated in civil disobedience actions at the Central New York army installation in 1983. However, as this paper will show, we don’t all agree on what is violent or peaceful and sometimes our disagreements fall along partisan lines.


Nuclear Weapon High School Degree Civil Disobedience American Political Science Review School Group 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Almond, A and Verba, S. (1963). The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. Princetin, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Blumenthal, M., Kahn, R., Andrews, F., and Head, K. (1972). Justifying Violence: Attitudes of American Men. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  3. Campbell, A., Converse, P., Miller, W., and Stokes, D. (1960). The American Voter. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  4. Converse, P. (1964). The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics. In Apter (Ed.), Ideology and Discontent. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  5. Lawrence, D. G. (1976). Procedural Norms and Tolerance: A Reassessment. American Political Science Review. 70, 80 – 100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Marsh, A. and Kaase, M. (1979). Background of Political Action, in Barnes and Kaase (Eds.), Political Action: Mass Participation in Five Western Democracies. Beverly Hills, CA; Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  7. Prothro, J. and Grigg, C. M. (I960). Fundamental Principles of Democracy: Bases of Agreement and Disagreement. Journal of Politics. 22, 275 – 294.Google Scholar
  8. Stimson, J. A. (1975). Belief systems: Constraint, Complexity, and the 1972 Election. American Journal of Political Science. 19, 393 – 417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Stouffer, S. A (1963). Communism. Conformity, and Civil Liberties: A Cross- Sectipn of the Nation speaks Its Ming Gloucester, MA: Smith.Google Scholar
  10. Verba, S. and Nie, N. H. (1972). Participation In America: Political Democracy and Social Equality. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  11. Wolfinger, R. E. and Rosenstone, S. J. (1980). Who Votes? New Haven, Connecticut; Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amy S. Hubbard
    • 1
  1. 1.Syracuse UniversitySyracuseUSA

Personalised recommendations