Nonviolent alternatives reduce external support for rebel groups: Evidence from two cross-national survey experiments

Abstract

How do nonviolent alternatives affect international support for violent rebel groups? Armed rebellions are often sustained by outside sympathy and support, which conditions global coordination to end intrastate conflict. Studies on reducing such support largely neglect how the emergence of alternative, nonviolent resistance groups impacts international support for violent resistance. Nonviolent alternatives could plausibly increase support for armed rebellion by legitimizing the cause of resistance or reduce support by delegitimizing the means of violent rebellion relative to nonviolent alternatives. To examine this puzzle, we conducted two online survey experiments across more than 30 countries using a pre-post design to capture changes in attitudes toward a hypothetical violent rebel group before and after the emergence of an alternative resistance group. We randomly vary both the presence and features of the alternative group, including explicitly nonviolent rhetoric, government repression and concessions, and short descriptors meant to signal the alternative group’s capacity to fill psychological needs for agency, justice, and belonging. We find that alternative resistance options consistently reduce support for armed rebellion, including among those originally most supportive of it, and that respondents strongly prefer explicitly nonviolent alternatives, yet neither the material efficacy nor the emotional resonance of those alternatives have a substantial additional effect.