Why people turn to extremism - it’s not one reason

Extremism is often painted as a single, growing threat - but new research shows it’s driven by two very different mindsets. Understanding the difference could be key to preventing violence before it starts. 

A new study spanning 58 countries reveals that human readiness for intergroup violence is not a single or unified mindset but driven by two fundamentally different psychological motivations.

The research to be published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal demonstrates that violent extremist intentions are driven either by defensive extremism – which aims to protect a group from perceived threats – or offensive extremism, which seeks to establish group dominance and expand influence.

Led by Norwegian researcher, Professor Jonas R Kunst and an international team of more than 100 researchers including Flinders University Professor Emma Thomas and Emily Haines, the preregistered study analysed data from 18,128 participants globally.

MORE: Three reasons young people are more likely to believe conspiracies

The findings indicate that defensive extremist intentions are consistently more prevalent, showing higher levels of endorsement than offensive intentions in 56 out of the 58 surveyed nations. This suggests a widespread tendency to find protective violence more morally acceptable than violence aimed at conquest.

“There is a lot of public speculation about the motives for engagement in violent extremism and it is often spoken about as though it were a single, uniform issue, yet our findings indicate that the motivation to use violence to defend one’s group is psychologically distinct from the use of violence to exert power over others," Professor Thomas says.

MORE: The hidden danger behind your news feed and how it can be stopped

The study uncovered that these two forms of extremism appeal to different types of people. Individuals exhibiting high levels of narcissism and a strong tendency to manipulate others demonstrated particularly strong inclinations toward defensive extremism.

The researchers suggest that calculating individuals might strategically exploit the perceived legitimacy of violence portrayed as protective. Conversely, people with a strong desire for group dominance and high levels of religious fundamentalism were more strongly linked to offensive extremism.

Lead author Professor Kunst, from the BI Norwegian Business School, adds psychopathy was positively related to both types of violent intentions. Furthermore, liberal political group identification was unexpectedly associated with higher offensive but lower defensive intentions, possibly reflecting a willingness to disrupt the status quo.

“Crucially, the distinction between these two mentalities maps onto real-world societal health. The research shows that offensive extremist intentions are linked to macrolevel societal dysfunction, including higher rates of political terror, internal conflicts, and the impact of terrorism,” he says.

Countries with higher scores on the Global Terrorism Index and lower scores on democracy and human development indices exhibited higher offensive violent intentions. Defensive intentions, despite being more widely endorsed, did not show these same significant correlations with macrolevel societal violence.

These findings carry profound implications for programs aimed at countering violent extremism. Because offensive and defensive intentions operate through distinct psychological pathways, the authors suggest that policymakers and intervention specialists must move away from uniform strategies.

Tailored interventions are required to effectively address the specific underlying motives driving individuals toward either protective vigilance or dominance-seeking violence.