The present research examined the psychological processes underlying engagement in non-normative forms of resistance and the role of repression. We conducted two studies in the contexts of two distinct social movements, both characterized by high levels of repression— the Anti-Extradition Law Amendment Bill Movement in Hong Kong and the “Chilean Spring” protests of 2019–2020. First, we tested whether non-normative resistance was motivated by (1) moralization of non-normative actions (moralization ...
The present research examined the psychological processes underlying engagement in non-normative forms of resistance and the role of repression. We conducted two studies in the contexts of two distinct social movements, both characterized by high levels of repression— the Anti-Extradition Law Amendment Bill Movement in Hong Kong and the “Chilean Spring” protests of 2019–2020. First, we tested whether non-normative resistance was motivated by (1) moralization of non-normative actions (moralization hypothesis), (2) perceived low efficacy of normative actions and lack of hope (nothing-to-lose hypothesis), or (3) perceived efficacy of non-normative actions in achieving movement goals (strategic choice hypothesis). Our results provided converging evidence for the moralization and strategic choice hypotheses, but not the nothing-to-lose hypothesis. Furthermore, we proposed and provided evidence for a model of movement escalation, whereby experiences of police violence predicted stronger willingness to engage in future non-normative actions via heightened motivations for non-normative resistance and increased risk perceptions. Taken together, these findings illuminate that repression in the form of coercive police violence may be ineffective in quelling social unrest. Rather, it can contribute to the radicalization of protesters. Potential boundary conditions and cross-contextual generalizability of the current results are discussed.
+
