![[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/2025/12/angry-man-750x375.jpg)
A recent study suggests that participation in online extremist communities may be driven by the search for basic human psychological needs. This research, published in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science, found that users whose posts reflected a sense of agency and capability were more active and stayed in these groups for longer periods. The findings provide evidence that extremist environments might serve as a space where individuals attempt to satisfy fundamental desires for personal growth and social connection.
The rise of far-right extremist movements has led to an increase in religious and ethnic violence across the globe. Researchers have noted that these ideologies are often spread through social media and private chatrooms that allow for easy communication and organization. Despite years of study, the exact reasons why individuals are drawn to these digital spaces remain only partially understood.
Jeremy J. J. Rappel and his colleagues at McGill University conducted this research to see if established theories of human motivation could explain extremist behavior. They focused on basic psychological needs theory, which is a well-supported framework in psychology. This theory suggests that all humans have three primary needs: autonomy, competence, and relatedness.
Autonomy refers to the need to feel that one’s actions and thoughts are authentic and self-chosen. Competence is the desire to feel capable and effective in achieving goals or performing tasks. Relatedness is the need to feel a sense of belonging and to have meaningful connections with other people.
The researchers proposed that extremist groups might appeal to people because they offer a way to satisfy these needs. A person who feels powerless or lonely in their daily life might turn to a digital community that promises a sense of empowerment or camaraderie. While these groups are often outside of social norms, the psychological drive to join them might be the same drive that leads others to join sports teams or civic organizations.
To test these ideas, the research team analyzed a massive dataset of leaked conversations from the messaging platform Discord. The data came from a public database of over 200 extremist chatrooms that included fascists, white supremacists, and conspiracy theorists. The final sample was immense, consisting of approximately 20 million posts written by more than 86,000 individual users.
Because the data was so large, the researchers used a specialized computer technique called natural language processing. This allowed them to analyze the meaning of millions of posts without having to read each one manually. They used a tool known as the Universal Sentence Encoder, which converts text into numerical scores representing its semantic meaning.
The team compared the posts made by Discord users to standardized survey questions used by psychologists to measure autonomy, competence, and relatedness. If a user’s posts were mathematically similar to the language of those survey questions, the user received a higher score for that specific need. This method allowed the researchers to estimate the psychological state of each user based on their natural speech patterns.
The researchers also included a control measure to ensure their results were accurate. They compared the user posts to a survey about food neophobia, which is the fear of trying new foods. Since a fear of new foods has nothing to do with extremism, this helped the team account for general patterns in how people use language. This step ensured that the findings were truly about psychological needs rather than just the way people structure their sentences.
To make the study more reliable, the team split their data into two halves. They used the first half to explore their ideas and the second half to confirm that their findings were consistent. This approach helps prevent scientists from finding patterns in data that only appear by chance.
The results showed a clear link between psychological needs and how people behave in these chatrooms. Users whose language reflected high levels of autonomy and competence tended to be much more engaged. They made more posts overall and remained active in the chatrooms for a longer number of days.
Competence was the strongest predictor of how many posts a person would make. This suggests that people who feel effective or capable in these spaces are more likely to contribute to the conversation. Autonomy also played a significant role, as users who felt a sense of agency were more likely to stay involved with the group over time.
A different pattern was observed for the need for relatedness. While there was some evidence that social connection was linked to activity, the results were less consistent than those for autonomy and competence. In some models, relatedness was actually linked to fewer posts, which was a surprising outcome.
The researchers also looked at the use of hate terms as a measure of extremist signaling. They found that users who expressed more autonomy and competence used fewer hate terms in their posts. This suggests that people who feel more personally secure and capable may have less of a need to use aggressive language against others.
On the other hand, a higher need for relatedness was linked to a greater use of hate terms. The researchers suggest that this might be because new members use extreme language to gain acceptance from the group. By adopting the group’s hateful rhetoric, they may be attempting to prove their loyalty and satisfy their need for belonging.
These findings share similarities with a study published in 2021 in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. That previous research, led by Abdo Elnakouri, found that expressing hatred toward large groups or institutions can give people a greater sense of meaning in life. Both studies suggest that extreme attitudes and group participation serve a psychological function for the individual.
The earlier study by Elnakouri found that collective hate can make people feel more energized and determined. It suggests that having a clear enemy to fight against can simplify the world and provide a sense of purpose. The McGill study builds on this by showing how these motivations play out in real world digital interactions over long periods.
But there are some limitations that should be considered. Since the data came from leaked chatroom logs, the researchers could not ask the users for their consent or follow up with them directly. Additionally, the computer models could not always tell if a user was expressing that a need was being met or if they were complaining that it was being frustrated.
The researchers noted that the analysis focused only on text and did not include images, videos, or emojis. These visual elements are common in online extremist culture and might carry additional psychological weight. Future research could look at how visual media contributes to satisfying psychological needs in these spaces.
The study also could not account for “lurkers,” who are people who read the messages but never post anything. It is possible that the psychological needs of these silent observers are different from those who are highly active. Understanding the motivations of this quieter group could be a helpful direction for future investigations.
Despite these limitations, the study provides a new way to think about how people become radicalized. It suggests that instead of focusing only on ideology, it may be helpful to look at the psychological benefits people get from these groups.
The study, “Basic Psychological Needs Are Associated With Engagement and Hate Term Use in Extremist Chatrooms,” was authored by Jeremy J. J. Rappel, David D. Vachon, and Eric Hehman.
