Social norms, self-interest, and social consent to violence - it turns out that these factors, among others, determine if an individual will engage in collective actions, whether normative or beyond the limits of acceptable norms. We spoke to Anna Gajda, a PhD student at the Institute of Psychology, UG, about the research findings in the project ‘Individual differences and support for group violence: the role of disinhibition, boldness and meanness’.

Karolina Żuk-Wieczorkiewicz: - You are involved in a project within OPUS 22, carried out at the Institute of Psychology. Could you say a few words about it?

Anna Gajda: - For more than two years, we have been conducting research in the project to find out who engages in collective actions, both normative and radical, related to declarations of willingness to use physical or online violence. We are investigating what role certain individual characteristics may play in this process, such as a tendency to be manipulative and arrogant in interpersonal relationships, limited empathy, impulsivity, irresponsible behaviour or a tendency to derive satisfaction from making others uncomfortable. Most of the results are related to the competitions we intend to apply for later - the MEN4DEM project is one example.

- What results have been achieved so far?

- Engaging in radical collective action is linked to antisocial traits related to disinhibition, meanness or low levels of empathy. And this applies to different social groups. We researched both in the United States and on a Polish representative sample. However, group norms also proved to be an important factor. We are not aware of the power of group norms - that is, what is accepted in a given group and what is not.

- I understand that individual characteristics are somehow moderated by social expectations?

- Exactly. Research has shown the enormous power of such conditioning. Sometimes we think that we are who we are, we have certain views and values, and if we enter a situation, it won't change us. Meanwhile, it turns out that group norms matter a great deal. If violence is accepted in a given group (e.g. it is acceptable to throw bricks at a demonstration, set fire to cars, etc.), this norm may strongly influence our behaviour, even if we ourselves have completely different beliefs about the legitimacy of such actions.

- What else influences our group behaviour?

- The second major factor, which seems obvious, is self-interest. The anticipation of self-interest significantly conquers the willingness to engage in collective action.

- You talk about things that seem seemingly obvious. Did anything surprise you as a researcher during the project? Or did the research results rather confirm the hypotheses?

- From the perspective of the literature and available psychological knowledge, it was surprising that psychopathy (understood as a set of traits including anti-social tendencies, disinhibition, a tendency towards callous or unempathetic behaviour, etc.) was often not a sufficient factor for a person to engage in radical or violent collective action. Our research suggests that it is the sense of ‘self-interest’, rather than psychopathy itself, that may be key.

- I take it you are not referring to psychopathy in the clinical sense? Rather, psychopathy as a personal trait?

- Exactly. It is about a certain set of traits that is present in society. Each of us can have a greater or lesser level of such traits and this does not necessarily involve a criminal aspect or even a personality disorder. People with a certain level of such psychopathy can function quite well in society, and in some situations, the ‘psychopathic’ traits even prove helpful - this applies, for example, to professions such as paramedics or uniformed services. In such professions, a slightly lower level of empathy or a task-oriented approach can help you perform your duties.

- So these qualities are not necessarily unequivocally bad. It all depends on the situation.

- Exactly. The mere fact of having a certain set of traits is not enough for someone to engage in radical collective action. Whether someone engages, for example, in a demonstration, a protest, a social movement, or perhaps even in some ethnic or war conflict, is likely to be related to whether the person has a significant self-interest in doing so. Interestingly, traits associated with disinhibition, psychopathy, etc. are often associated with individualism, so it might seem that such a person would not want to engage in group activities. Having ‘self-interest’ may determine that such an individualist will nevertheless want to engage in actions of a collective nature. This was certainly a surprising factor - that violence and aggression alone are not tempting enough.

- What other results did you get from your research?

- We did research in different contexts: for example, anti-vaccination movements or whether Polish society is more supportive of the Church or of paedophilia victims - this was linked to the publication of a report saying that some clergymen were involved in sexual crimes and that John Paul II knew about this phenomenon (Ekke Overbeek, ‘Maxima Culpa. John Paul II knew’ - editor's note). This was the moment when Polish society was divided into 2 groups. In each, there were people both more and less radicalised, more and less willing to act violently. We thought it was a good moment to step in with research. It turned out that regardless of whether people supported the Church and John Paul II, or whether they found credible the information presented in the report about the Church's cover-up of paedophilia cases, our observations confirmed the pattern previously observed in research on anti-vaccine movements.

- I understand that some results were repeated regardless of the subject of the engagement?

- Yes. The pattern was that, indeed, elements of psychopathic traits (often including sadistic traits) were often present in those willing to engage in radical collective action - indicating that people with this personality trait are likely to want to engage in radical action, regardless of the context of that action. In my view, this is an important result because of the potential for prevention - and links to the result on norms. The implication is that the more we lower the level of consent to aggression and violence in society, the less we will give ‘room for manoeuvre’ to people with antisocial personality traits. Let us build such a society so that we give similar individuals as few opportunities as possible to ‘prove themselves’.

- Is this the element of social norms that you mentioned?

- Yes. About the acceptance of violence as something somehow normative. Some people will want to engage in violence and there is probably nothing we can do about that. We can act individually with specific individuals, call for psychotherapy, awareness-raising, etc. - but it can be very difficult, even unfeasible, to ‘pick’ these particular individuals out of society. It is important to make people aware that the extent to which we condone violence is of great importance in terms of the development of conflicts. It also makes a huge difference politically.

- I understand that the more we condone violence in society, the greater the chance that this violence will occur?

- Exactly. This seems obvious, yet it goes on: violence is still accepted. It seems that strong systemic solutions are needed to do something about it.

- What research methods did you use?

- Questionnaire surveys (in which we investigated, among other things, the level of commitment to the cause) and elements of experimentation. We asked not only about ‘physical’ actions (e.g. I'm at a protest and I'm fighting violently) but also about online actions, e.g. doxing, i.e. publishing private information. We have also conducted field research, e.g. during the Equality March or the Independence March. This is a unique form of research because we are at the march and can actually see what is happening there. This is extremely interesting and engaging for us as researchers.

- What are the further plans for the project's activities?

- It will certainly be important to carry out analyses of the results so far. The next step will be what we already started 2 years ago: a large international survey. We included about 50 countries from every region of the world.

In it, we asked about views regarding, on the one hand, greater inclusivity, openness, and on the other hand, greater conservatism, a focus on tradition. We also explored various individual traits, such as anti-social traits, authoritarianism, the belief that norms and rules are important and it is important to follow them, the belief that it is important to believe in authority (leader, group leader) - as this applies to any group, regardless of size or degree of formation. There were also elements of utopia and dystopia in the study - in general, very many variables. We also allowed our collaborators to add those variables that were of most interest to them. This research is now complete; we are now at the stage of analysing the data and waiting for the official results. We are very curious to see what they will come up with.

I would like to add one comment here: I talk a lot about radicalism and violence because these are the issues that interest me the most. However, let's not forget that people do not always engage with a cause in a violent way. Most often their actions are peaceful and can be considered normative. They usually seem to be the most effective. It is only when peaceful actions do not work that people decide to radicalise their actions.

- Sounds like a tip for politicians.

- Exactly! There is no need to call for violence. E.g. in the research on John Paul II and the defence of victims, individual anti-social traits correlated with radicalism, but elements of the belief that society should be hierarchical were also significant. Belief in authority, that the leader is right (and promotes values we should believe in) and the belief that rules and norms must be followed were also significant. People with high levels of these traits also tend to be annoyed when someone breaks these rules. All of these traits have been shown to be associated with supporting both victims of paedophilia among priests and defending the good name of the Church and John Paul II. The greater the belief in social equality and that no group should dominate others in society, the greater the willingness to support victims of paedophilia and the belief that the accusations against priests are justified. However, we are still talking about a willingness to engage in normative actions.

- What are your hopes for this research or its publication? Can they ‘change the world’?

- Of course, there is great hope of changing the world. Perhaps we will add a few of our pebbles to this process. Certainly, we aim to make people more aware of standards, for example. What is hatching from all our research is a conclusion that was perhaps not so assumed before: that certain correlations related to the tendency to engage in radical collective action occur regardless of the context of that action. Traits related to disinhibition, low levels of empathy, etc. matter regardless of the narrative or object of struggle. At the end of the project, we will have a board of different narratives that give very similar conclusions. I think this is the most important result of our research. I hope that the results of our work will be published soon and go into both the academic and popular science space. We do not want the knowledge we have gained to be confined within the walls of the university. We want it to reach people. This is practical, applied knowledge that can help in understanding how the world and groups function.

- Thank you for the interview.

---

Anna Gajda is a PhD student in a research project ‘Individual differences and the support of group violence: the role of disinhibition, boldness and meanness’ carried out within the National Science Centre's OPUS 22 competition. Her supervisor and mentor is Dr hab. Tomasz Besta, Prof. UG, who is also the Principal Investigator of the project. In the project, Anna Gajda conducts research into the causes of radicalisation and extremism, including the importance of personality traits and social context for engaging in collective action. Her work combines social psychology with the psychology of personality and individual differences. Her research is largely cross-cultural.

She is a member of the Protest Lab research group, where she is particularly interested in analysing intergroup relations and group processes in the context of protests and mass gatherings. Together with her colleagues, she conducts (among other things) field research at demonstrations in various cities in Poland.