A groundbreaking study covering 58 countries shows that people’s willingness to engage in intergroup violence is not a uniform way of thinking. Published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS), the findings indicate that extremist intentions have two fundamentally different psychological underpinnings. These are: defensive extremism, which aims to protect one’s own group from perceived threats, and offensive extremism, which seeks to dominate the group and expand its influence.
The article is an important outcome of a project led by dr hab. Tomasz Besta, prof. UG, funded by the National Science Centre under the OPUS 22 call. The project is being carried out by an international team of over one hundred researchers. The pre-registered study analysed data from 18,128 participants from around the world. The results show that intentions of defensive extremism are clearly more widespread: they achieved a higher level of support than offensive intentions in 56 out of 58 countries surveyed. This suggests a widespread tendency to regard violence ‘in defence’ as more morally acceptable than violence aimed at conquest.
‘This was an extremely interesting and fruitful research project, which allowed us to better understand how individual differences translate into actions taken on behalf of the group, both peaceful and radical,’ emphasises prof. Tomasz Besta, co-author of the publication. ‘We demonstrate that the motivations behind intergroup violence are complex. Thanks to the study conducted across such a large number of countries, we can also analyse the cross-cultural aspect, examining whether culture and the state of society play a role in explaining the propensity for violence. We hope this is just the beginning; we expect further interesting publications in leading academic journals.’
Psychological profiles in different types of extremism
The study also showed that the two types of extremism attract different psychological profiles. Individuals with high levels of narcissism and a strong tendency to manipulate others exhibited particularly strong tendencies towards defensive extremism. Why is this the case? Researchers suggest that more calculating individuals may strategically exploit the social legitimisation of violence presented as defence. Conversely, individuals with a strong need for group dominance and a high level of religious fundamentalism were more clearly linked to offensive extremism.
Both types of violent intentions, however, were associated with psychopathic traits. Interestingly, identification with liberal political views was linked to higher levels of offensive intentions and lower levels of defensive ones - which may reflect a greater willingness to challenge the status quo.
Extremism and the state of societies
‘The role of cultural factors also proved interesting,’ adds prof. Tomasz Besta. ‘Countries scoring higher on the Global Terrorism Index and lower on democracy and social development indices were characterised by higher levels of offensive violent intentions. Defensive intentions, although more widely accepted, showed no significant links to these indicators of violence at the societal level.’
The findings have significant implications for programmes aimed at countering radicalisation and extremist violence. As offensive and defensive extremism are based on different psychological mechanisms, the authors emphasise the need to move away from uniform intervention strategies. Effective measures require an approach tailored to specific motivations, whether related to the need to protect the group or to the pursuit of dominance.
The article is the result of a project funded by the National Science Centre (OPUS 22, No. 2021/43/B/HS6/00020) and was produced in collaboration with the team of Jonas Kunst from BI Norwegian Business School, who is the first author of the publication.