![[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/2025/09/wartorn-destroyed-city-750x375.jpg)
A new study on the psychology of war justification reveals that common assumptions about political ideology and group identity may not hold true when people consider the morality of conflict. The research found that left-wing authoritarianism, not right-wing authoritarianism, was linked to a greater acceptance of brutal warfare methods, while a secure national identity was associated with a preference for morally constrained conflict. The findings were published in the journal Politics and Governance.
Researchers in political psychology have long explored the factors that lead individuals and groups to support war. Previous studies often found connections between personality traits, political worldviews, and a general willingness to endorse military action. For example, traits like collective narcissism, an insecure and grandiose belief in the superiority of one’s own group, and right-wing authoritarianism have been consistently linked to support for aggressive foreign policies.
However, the authors of this new study noted a gap in this body of research. Most studies treated support for war as a single concept, overlooking the complex moral reasoning people use to decide whether a war is justified. They did not distinguish between the reasons for starting a war and the methods used to fight it.
The concept of a “just war” has deep roots in philosophy and theology, distinguishing between legitimate reasons to go to war, like self-defense, and acceptable conduct within a war, such as avoiding harm to civilians. The researchers wanted to see how different psychological profiles mapped onto these more nuanced moral beliefs. They were particularly interested in comparing different forms of group attachment. They looked at both national and religious identity, examining whether a person’s attachment was secure and positive or narcissistic and defensive. They also explored two distinct types of authoritarianism.
While right-wing authoritarianism, with its emphasis on tradition and submission to authority, is well-studied, the concept of left-wing authoritarianism, characterized by anti-hierarchical aggression and a desire to censor opposing views, is a more recent area of inquiry. The study aimed to uncover how all these factors might independently or jointly shape a person’s beliefs about what makes a war morally acceptable.
To investigate these questions, the research team recruited a community sample of 448 adults in Poland. Participants completed a series of questionnaires online. The central measurement tool was a new scale designed by the researchers to assess beliefs that justify war. This scale presented participants with various reasons for initiating a war and different methods for conducting one, asking them to rate how justifiable each was.
The items ranged from purely defensive actions to highly aggressive or brutal tactics, like targeting civilians or using chemical weapons. Participants also completed scales measuring their identification with their nation and their religious group. These scales were designed to differentiate between a secure identification, which reflects a healthy sense of belonging, and a narcissistic identification.
The narcissistic measures were further divided into “agentic” narcissism, focused on the group’s power and competence, and “communal” narcissism, focused on the group’s perceived moral superiority. Finally, participants’ political ideologies were assessed using scales for both right-wing authoritarianism and left-wing authoritarianism. The researchers then used a series of statistical analyses to map the complex relationships between all these variables.
The analysis of the new war justification scale revealed that people’s beliefs clustered into three distinct categories. The first was a “just war” perspective, which combined morally restricted reasons for war, like defense against attack, with morally restricted means, like minimizing civilian casualties. The other two categories were separate: an acceptance of unrestricted reasons for going to war and an acceptance of unrestricted and brutal means of waging war.
When the researchers examined the connections between these beliefs and the psychological profiles of the participants, they found several unexpected patterns. One of the most significant results was the lack of any association between right-wing authoritarianism and any of the three war justification beliefs. This finding runs contrary to a large body of previous research that has often linked this ideology to aggressive attitudes. In stark contrast, left-wing authoritarianism showed clear connections. Individuals who scored higher on this measure were less likely to endorse the “just war” view. At the same time, they were more likely to accept the use of unrestricted and brutal means in a conflict.
The study also produced surprising findings regarding group identity. A secure and positive identification with one’s nation was associated with a stronger endorsement of the “just war” perspective and a rejection of unrestricted means. This suggests that a healthy form of patriotism is linked to a desire for warfare to be conducted within moral limits. Communal national narcissism, the belief that one’s nation is morally superior, was unexpectedly associated with a lower acceptance of the “just war” view.
The researchers suggest that for these individuals, claims of morality may be more for show than a genuine guide for behavior. Another unexpected finding was that religious identification, whether secure or narcissistic, showed almost no relationship to any of the beliefs about justifying war. This suggests that in the context of this study, an attachment to a religious group did not translate into a specific moral stance on warfare.
The researchers also tested whether authoritarian worldviews could explain the link between group identity and war justification beliefs. They found this was not the case. The relationships were largely direct, meaning that a person’s national identity and their political ideology appeared to influence their views on war independently of one another. For example, secure national identification predicted support for a “just war” on its own, not because people with this identity were less authoritarian.
The study has some limitations that the authors acknowledge. The research was conducted in a single country, Poland, which has a unique cultural and political history as a post-communist nation currently in proximity to a major war. The findings, especially those concerning left-wing authoritarianism, may not be the same in other parts of the world.
Additionally, the measurement scale for secure identification had low internal consistency, which means it may not have captured the concept as reliably as desired. Because the study was correlational, it can only show associations between different factors; it cannot prove that one factor causes another.
Future research could explore these relationships in different cultural contexts, particularly in nations directly involved in conflict, and utilize more refined measurement tools to confirm these patterns. Despite these constraints, the study provides a new perspective on the moral psychology of warfare, suggesting that the links between ideology, identity, and the justification of violence are more complex than previously understood.
The study, “Collective Narcissism, Left‐ and Right‐Wing Authoritarianisms, and Justification of War,” was authored by Magdalena Anna Żemojtel-Piotrowska, Piotr Radkiewicz, Maksim Rudnev, Heather A. Kumove, and Jarosław Piotrowski.
