Double standard: Chinese public opinion on the Hong Kong protests

IF 1.7 2区 社会学 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Dimitar Gueorguiev, Dongshu Liu
{"title":"Double standard: Chinese public opinion on the Hong Kong protests","authors":"Dimitar Gueorguiev, Dongshu Liu","doi":"10.1177/07388942231174173","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Research on social movements suggests that when protesters use violence, public opinion often turns against them, unless the observers already view the protesters as extremists. This creates what we refer to as an “asymmetric liability,” where by moderate protest movements are held to a higher standard of civility than more extreme ones. Based on a survey experiment surrounding the 2019 protests in Hong Kong, we show that violence undercuts Chinese public sympathy when movements are framed around rights-based agendas but has little impact when protesters are portrayed as separatists. Pairing our survey results alongside media trends offers suggestive evidence that mainland respondents became less sympathetic to anti-government protesters and slightly less sensitive to protest violence as state media began depicting protesters as radical separatists.","PeriodicalId":51488,"journal":{"name":"Conflict Management and Peace Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Conflict Management and Peace Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/07388942231174173","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Research on social movements suggests that when protesters use violence, public opinion often turns against them, unless the observers already view the protesters as extremists. This creates what we refer to as an “asymmetric liability,” where by moderate protest movements are held to a higher standard of civility than more extreme ones. Based on a survey experiment surrounding the 2019 protests in Hong Kong, we show that violence undercuts Chinese public sympathy when movements are framed around rights-based agendas but has little impact when protesters are portrayed as separatists. Pairing our survey results alongside media trends offers suggestive evidence that mainland respondents became less sympathetic to anti-government protesters and slightly less sensitive to protest violence as state media began depicting protesters as radical separatists.
双重标准:中国公众对香港抗议的看法
对社会运动的研究表明,当抗议者使用暴力时,公众舆论往往会转而反对他们,除非观察者已经将抗议者视为极端分子。这就造成了我们所说的“不对称责任”,温和的抗议运动比极端的抗议运动有更高的文明标准。基于一项围绕2019年香港抗议活动的调查实验,我们表明,当运动围绕基于权利的议程进行时,暴力会削弱中国公众的同情心,但当抗议者被描绘成分裂分子时,暴力几乎没有影响。将我们的调查结果与媒体趋势相结合,可以提供暗示性的证据,表明随着官方媒体开始将抗议者描绘成激进的分裂分子,大陆受访者对反政府抗议者的同情有所减少,对抗议暴力的敏感程度略有下降。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Conflict Management and Peace Science
Conflict Management and Peace Science INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS-
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
4.80%
发文量
24
期刊介绍: Conflict Management and Peace Science is a peer-reviewed journal published five times a year from 2009. It contains scientific papers on topics such as: - international conflict; - arms races; - the effect of international trade on political interactions; - foreign policy decision making; - international mediation; - and game theoretic approaches to conflict and cooperation. Affiliated with the Peace Science Society (International), Conflict Management and Peace Science features original and review articles focused on news and events related to the scientific study of conflict and peace. Members of the Peace Science Society (International) receive an annual subscription to Conflict Management and Peace Science as a benefit of membership.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信