How we perceive protest violence matters greatly. This study examines how framing affects whether protests appear violent, and consequently, support for repression.

### Threat of Harm Comes First

Survey experiments in Israel and the United States show that describing an action as threatening significantly increases its perceived violence — regardless if it's a threat to civilians or soldiers.

### Three Key Dimensions Shape Violence Framing

The authors explore three crucial aspects:

* Threat Level: Describes protesters attacking comrades vs. attacking civilians

* Arms Involvement: Notes whether protesters use weapons like guns vs. just blood

* Protester Identity: Clarifies if protesters are soldiers or civilians

Each framing component independently influences public opinion.

### A Surprising Finding on Out-Groups

Contrary to expectations, people don't perceive outsiders as inherently more violent — but they're still significantly more willing to support repression against them.

### Why Framing Matters

These findings illuminate how regimes strategically frame resistance to maintain legitimacy. They demonstrate that the perception of violence isn't solely determined by actual harm, highlighting a key vulnerability in democratic accountability.