How Should Politicians Respond to Violent Threats? A Gendered Explanation of How the Public Views Responses to Threats of Violence

Amid rising threats of violence towards elected officials, many politicians now openly publicize their concerns, citing fear and the toll on their mental well-being. Others project resolve, vowing to continue their duties unperturbed. We fielded an original survey experiment to understand the ways in which a politician's response to violent threats can affect public tolerance for and perceived severity of these threats as well as support for the politician in the aftermath of the threat. We posit that after experiencing a threat of violence politicians can either (1) express their personal fear/concern regarding the threat, (2) express their strength/resilience in light of the threat, or (3) not comment on the threat. We also investigate which approach proves most impactful for women politicians, who often face heightened threats. We find that strong responses are beneficial for both men and women politicians and women face a bind as vulnerable and strong responses garner different effects on public opinion. Overall, our results provide insight into how elected officials might best respond to threats and harassment, with additional attention paid to gender differences in strategy effectiveness.