![[Adobe Stock]](https://sp-ao.shortpixel.ai/client/to_webp,q_glossy,ret_img,w_750,h_375/https://www.psypost.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/veteran-with-service-dog-750x375.jpg)
A recent study published in the journal Injury Epidemiology provides evidence that military service and combat experience do not broadly increase support for political violence or right-wing extremism. The findings suggest that while veterans who engage in extremist violence pose specific threats due to their training, widespread extremist attitudes among military members appear to be relatively rare.
“The January 6 insurrection raised questions about whether people with military experience are disproportionately involved in political violence,” said study author Elizabeth A. Tomsich, a researcher at the Centers for Violence Prevention at UC Davis.
“While reports indicated that veterans were overrepresented among those charged, limited research has examined links between military service and support for or willingness to engage in political violence. We conducted this study to better understand whether military service and combat experience are associated with support for or willingness to engage in political violence, agreement with extremist views, or approval of extremist groups or movements.”
Some experts have proposed that the psychological processes involved in military training, such as desensitization to violence and intense group solidarity, might make some veterans susceptible to extremist recruitment. At the same time, the loss of community and purpose during the difficult transition back to civilian life could pull some individuals toward radical organizations. However, prior surveys examining the endorsement of political violence among the general veteran population have yielded mixed and sometimes contradictory results.
The researchers wanted to clarify whether military service or combat experience acts as a widespread risk factor for supporting political violence or extremist organizations. They sought to measure personal willingness to engage in such violence and approval of various extremist movements. By surveying a large, nationally representative sample, they hoped to provide a clearer picture of political militancy within the armed forces.
To investigate these questions, the scientists analyzed data from the 2022 Life in America Survey, an online poll administered to a sample of 12,947 adult members of the Ipsos KnowledgePanel. The sample included 2,255 respondents with military backgrounds, of which 1,105 reported having served in a combat or war zone. The researchers recruited participants through a probability-based sampling method, ensuring the demographics matched the broader adult population of the United States.
The researchers measured military background by asking respondents about active duty, Reserve, or National Guard service, while combat experience was identified by service in an official war zone. The survey included questions across four broad domains, which covered beliefs about democracy, opinions on race in American society, justification for violence, and support for extremist ideologies. These ideologies included concepts like the QAnon conspiracy theory, as well as specific organizations like the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers.
To ensure accuracy, the scientists designed the survey without a neutral middle option, forcing respondents to pick a definitive side. They also randomized the order of positive and negative response options to prevent people from falling into habit-driven answer patterns. The researchers then compared the responses of individuals with military backgrounds to those without such experience.
The data suggests that military members and veterans share many of the same views as the general public. For the most part, the researchers found no significant differences between military and non-military respondents regarding beliefs about American democracy or the prospect of a civil war. In fact, military respondents were slightly less likely than non-military individuals to perceive the use of political violence to keep borders open as usually or always justified.
When it came to non-political violence, military respondents were more likely to justify the use of force for self-defense. They were also more likely to justify violence to prevent someone from injuring or killing another person. Additionally, respondents with military backgrounds were slightly more likely to strongly agree that straight white men hold far too much power in American society.
There were a few specific areas where military respondents indicated a higher personal willingness to engage in political violence. People with military backgrounds were slightly more likely to report being willing to use force on their own as an individual to advance a political objective. They also reported a greater willingness to organize a group of people who share their beliefs to use force.
Regarding the use of firearms, military respondents were more likely to say they would be armed with a gun in a hypothetical situation where they felt political violence was justified. They were also more likely to report that they would carry a gun openly so that people clearly knew they were armed. Despite this increased willingness to carry a weapon, the researchers found no difference between the two groups regarding their likelihood of actually threatening or shooting someone with a gun.
In terms of extremist organizations, military respondents were slightly more likely to strongly approve of the Oath Keepers, an anti-government organization that actively recruits current and former military personnel. Besides this specific group, the scientists found no other differences in approval for right-wing extremist movements. A supplemental analysis also revealed that combat experience did not increase the likelihood of supporting political violence among the military sample.
“This study found little evidence that military service or combat experience increases support for or willingness to engage in political violence, agreement with extremist views, or approval of extremist groups or movements,” Tomsich told PsyPost. “Differences between military and non-military respondents were small, suggesting that concerns about widespread extremist attitudes among veterans or service members may be overstated.”
“At the same time, individuals with military experience who do become involved in extremist violence may pose a particular threat given their training and experience, highlighting the importance of continued research to identify subgroups at heightened risk in order to inform targeted prevention and outreach efforts.”
Future research should explore the psychological and social challenges veterans face when separating from the military and transitioning back to civilian life. The researchers also suggest looking into the different branches of the armed forces to see if specific military subcultures influence political radicalization. Identifying the exact vulnerabilities that push certain individuals toward extremism will help inform targeted prevention efforts for active-duty service members and veterans.
The study, “Militancy in the military: military service and support for political violence and right-wing extremism,” was authored by Elizabeth A. Tomsich and Garen J. Wintemute.
