While scholars have long been interested in the interaction between dissent (e.g., protest, strikes, terrorism and insurgency) and repression (e.g., bans, mass arrests, torture and genocide), it is only in the past few decades that social scientists have begun to examine this topic in a rigorous, systematic manner. Commonly referred to as the study of “conflict processes” (Lichbach and Gurr 1981) or, more simply, the “dissent-repression nexus” (Lichbach 1987; Moore 1998; Davenport 2005a), this work has produced two contradictory sets of findings. On the one hand, dissent has consistently been found to increase repression in every statistical investigation (e.g., Ziegenhagen 1986; Poe and Tate 1994; Davenport 1995; Franklin 1997; Poe et al. 1999; Keith 2002; Davenport and Armstrong 2004). On the other hand, repression has been found to have every imaginable influence on dissent, including no influence at all (e.g., Lichbach 1987; Gupta et al. 1993; Khawaja 1993; Rasler 1996; Moore 1998; 2000), demonstrating the instability of coercive effectiveness. What accounts for this imbalance in research findings? Theory suggests that there should be a proportional balance in the coerciveness of tactics employed by dissidents and authorities. Using tit-for-tat logic, each side is expected to escalate (or de-escalate) coerciveness in response to the actions of the other. The first finding identified above, that dissent increases repression, fits this model of proportionate response, but the second, that repression has all types of effects on dissent, does not. In this paper, I argue that this inconsistency and the potential imbalance in the response of dissidents to repression is due to limitations in the way dissent and repression are normally conceptualized, how the theoretical explanations are invoked to explain contention, and the ways in which data on dissent and repression are collected and analyzed. Using extensive primary and secondary sources, I use a combination of large-N, qualitative, and ethnographic data to explore the relationship between repression and dissent through a detailed study of protest activities in Jordan. One period of protest—the six weeks of demonstrations against the Israeli invasion and destruction of several towns in Palestine (including Jenin and Nablus) in March-April 2002—is examined in micro detail. The quantitative data illustrates patterns of protest activities and the response from various securities agencies, incorporating spatial dynamics. Ethnographic research of several groups that participated in the events reveals the micro-details of planning and also the groups’ expectations about responses from security agencies.