'Nothing to lose or a world to win': Reconsidering efficacy, legitimacy, political trust and repression in confrontational collective action.

Confrontational collective actions are neither uncontrolled outbursts of initially pacifist resistance nor mere reactions to helplessness and lack of viable political options. Instead, they serve strategically determined purposes within the group, making them perceived as both effective and legitimate. Regardless of whether it is more or less confrontational, examining the role of efficacy and legitimacy of actions that are committed to achieving group goals is crucial for understanding the appeal of collective action strategies. We examined the role of political trust and protest repression in predicting the legitimacy of protest violence and the perceived efficacy of confrontational and non-confrontational collective actions and, in turn, their role in confrontational collective action. Across three correlational studies conducted in Germany, Turkey and the United Kingdom (N = 3833), the legitimacy of protest violence and the efficacy of confrontational tactics were core determinants of confrontational collective actions. While low political trust did not directly predict confrontational action, it predicted heightened protest repression and the legitimacy of protest violence. Our findings challenge the nothing-to-lose hypothesis by demonstrating that confrontational actions are not driven by the low efficacy of non-confrontational strategies or low political trust, and people may perceive both confrontational and non-confrontational actions as similarly effective.