• News
• All news
• The two faces of extre...

• Psychology
• Society

People's tendency to support violence against other groups is not driven by a single mindset: two fundamental motivations and different personality traits are key determinants of violence. This is revealed by a new scientific study covering 58 countries.

Violent extremism is driven by two fundamentally different motivations: Defensive extremism aims to protect a group from perceived threats, whilst offensive extremism seeks to establish group dominance and expand influence.

This is shown by a new study published in the journal PNAS.

Violence to protect - or to dominate

Led by Jonas R. Kunst (University of Oslo) and Milan Obaidi (University of Copenhagen), an international team of more than 100 researchers has analysed survey data from 18,128 participants worldwide.

'Our findings indicate that defensive extremist intentions are more widespread and enjoy greater support than offensive intentions. This holds true in 56 of the 58 countries studied,' says Milan Obaidi, adding:

'This suggests a widespread tendency to find protective violence more morally acceptable than violence aimed at conquest.'

Milan Obaidi finds it significant that violent extremism stems from two very different motivations - the need to protect one's group or the pursuit of dominance.

'It is important to recognise this difference because the motivations stem from different psychological systems and have different consequences for individuals and society,' he says.

Appeals to different types

The study also shows that the two forms of extremism appeal to different types of human beings. People with high levels of narcissism and a strong tendency to manipulate others show particularly strong inclinations towards defensive extremism. The researchers believe that calculating individuals can strategically exploit the perceived legitimacy of violence presented as protective.

Conversely, individuals with a strong desire for group dominance and high levels of religious fundamentalism are more strongly associated with offensive extremism. Psychopathy is positively related to both types of violent intentions.

'Furthermore, we see that identification with liberal political groups is, unexpectedly, associated with higher offensive but lower defensive intentions. This may reflect a willingness to disrupt the status quo,' suggests Milan Obaidi.

Need for tailored interventions

Another key finding for the researchers is that offensive extremist intentions are linked to societal dysfunction at the macro level, including higher rates of political terror, internal conflicts and the impact of terrorism.

'Countries with higher scores on the Global Terrorism Index and lower scores on indices of democracy and human development exhibit higher levels of offensive violent intentions,' explains Milan Obaidi.

Defensive intentions, despite broader support, do not show the same significant correlations with societal violence at the macro level.

The study's findings could have major implications for programmes designed to counter violent extremism.

'As offensive and defensive intentions operate through different psychological mechanisms, policymakers and intervention specialists must move away from uniform strategies,' suggests Milan Obaidi, elaborating:

'Tailored interventions are needed to effectively address the specific underlying motives that drive individuals towards either protective or dominance-seeking violence.

The study, funded by the National Science Centre in Poland, can be read here.

Contact

Milan Obaidi, associate professor
Department of Psychology
Email: [email protected]
T: +45 35 32 91 76

Simon Knokgaard Halskov
University of Copenhagen Press Office
Email: [email protected]
M: +45 93 56 53 29

• Psychology
• Society

More stories