IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/apsrev/v118y2024i1p458-474_28.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Contested Killings: The Mobilizing Effects of Community Contact with Police Violence

Author

Listed:
  • MORRIS, KEVIN T.
  • SHOUB, KELSEY

Abstract

Recently, we have witnessed the politicizing effects of police killings in the United States. This project asks how such killings might (de)mobilize voters at the local level. We draw on multiple theoretical approaches to develop a theory of community contact with the police. We argue that when a highly visible event tied to government actions occurs—like a police killing—it can spur turnout. This is especially true where public narratives tie such events to government and structural causes. By comparing neighborhoods near a killing before and after election day, we estimate the causal effect on turnout. We find a mobilizing effect. These effects are larger when they “trend” on Google, occur in Black communities, or if the victim is Black. Proximity to a killing also increases support for abolishing the police. We conclude that police violence increases electoral participation in communities where narratives about racially unjust policing resonate most.

Suggested Citation

  • Morris, Kevin T. & Shoub, Kelsey, 2024. "Contested Killings: The Mobilizing Effects of Community Contact with Police Violence," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 118(1), pages 458-474, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:118:y:2024:i:1:p:458-474_28
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0003055423000321/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Courbe, Jacques & Ferrer, Joshua & Straus, Graham, 2024. "Contested Killings Replication: A Comment on Morris and Shoub (2023)," I4R Discussion Paper Series 129, The Institute for Replication (I4R).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:118:y:2024:i:1:p:458-474_28. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/psr .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.