Running head: NOT-SO-FREE SPEECH: SUPPORT FOR VIOLENT PROTESTS ACROSS THE POLITICAL DIVIDE 1 Not-so-free speech: Support for violent protests across the political divide

Intergroup violence is a frequent occurrence in society. That college campuses have recently been the site of numerous violent protests is indicative of a growing need to further our knowledge of what leads to violent group behavior. According to the theory of identity fusion, ‘fused’ individuals, who’s personal identities have become deeply immersed in their group and or cause, are more likely to engage in radical behavior on behalf of the group. In addition, radicalism and violent intentions have been found to increase with exposure to homogenous online extremist groups. Little to no research has been conducted on the effect of perceived group consensus, that is, the belief that members of one’s group agree and support a course of action, on endorsement of violent extremism. Furthermore, political ideology has yet to be explored as a factor that influences radical group behavior. This study seeks to fill this gap through examining the effects of perceived group consensus, identity fusion with a group and cause, and political orientation on the support of violent protest behavior, as well as individual intentions to participate in violent protests. An online survey was completed by 468 participants who self-identified as either Republican or Democrat. Our data yielded interesting results for the variable of political orientation. Republicans who were strongly fused to their political party were more likely to support violent protests after viewing the consensus manipulation and less likely to give their support if they were in the no consensus condition. Weakly fused Democrats reported greater support for violent protests when shown the consensus manipulation than strongly fused Democrats. Democrats and Republicans both showed an increased support for violent protests if they were highly fused with their respective causes; however, this effect was significantly stronger for Democrats. Not-so-free speech: Support for violent protests across the political divide 3 In February of 2017, Milo Yiannopoulous, a controversial right-wing activist, was scheduled to speak at UC Berkeley. His presence was the subject of heated debate on campus, and the university spent thousands of dollars on extensive security measures. The speech was eventually interrupted by masked, black-clad protestors who threw commercial-grade fireworks, rocks, Molotov cocktails, pepper-sprayed the crowd, and smashed the windows of buildings on campus. This night of chaos resulted in $100,000 of damages to the campus, a total of six injured people, and one arrest. This incident is one of the many violent, aggressive protests to arise on college campuses in the past decade (McLaughlin, 2017). Exacerbated by the growing political polarization, college campuses have been the site of violent protests responding to issues of free speech (Cohen, 2017; Westfall, Van Bowen, Chambers, & Judd, 2015). Violent protests suggest the willingness of individuals to engage in extreme, violent behavior on behalf of their group. Intergroup violence is not a new or uncommon phenomenon, as it has been a part of human history since we segregated into tribes (Kelly, 2005). The question of why this violence occurs has been explored in a variety of ways; however, continues to be incompletely understood. The theory of identity fusion holds that the boundaries between an individual’s personal self and their group identity can become permeable, resulting in a case of identity fusion (Swann & Buhrmester, 2015). These ‘fused’ individuals experience a visceral sense of oneness with the group and show a greater willingness to engage in extreme pro-group behaviors than their non-fused counterparts (Swann, Gomez, Seyle, Huici, & Morales, 2009). This may lead to a cycle of violence, in which group identification motivates participation in collective violence and violent behavior, which then serves to increase the individual's identification with the group (Littman & Paluck, 2015; Littman, 2018). Endorsement for extremism has been found to be amplified by active exposure to radicalism on social media Not-so-free speech: Support for violent protests across the political divide 4 (Pauwels & Hardyns, 2018). The false consensus effect, the overestimation of public support for your views, appears to underlie this relationship between violent extremism and involvement in extremist groups online. For instance, extremist groups, such as neo-Nazis, are more likely to exhibit a false consensus effect that increases with their levels of participation in online radical groups (Wojcieszak, 2008; Wojcieszak, 2010). While the effects of false consensus have garnered research attention, the impact of perceived group consensus, the extent to which one believes one’s group supports a view, on the extreme behavior of the individual has yet to be studied at length. In this study, we will examine the impact of perceived group consensus, identity fusion, and political orientation on the endorsement of violent protest behavior. We expect that group members, perhaps motivated by a desire to display their loyalty to the group’s collective aims, may enact extreme actions when they are convinced that such actions will meet with the groups’ approval. Thus, the current study expands the literature by examining the impact of perceived group consensus, as well as the potential effects of political orientation, on violent protest behavior.