![[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/2023/06/man-with-gun-entering-building-750x375.jpg)
A new study published in The Lancet Regional Health – Americas suggests that various forms of prejudice are strongly tied to the belief that political violence is justified in the United States. People who expressed the most intense agreement with these prejudiced views were also more likely to say they supported or would personally engage in violence to achieve political objectives. When these forms of bias were combined into a broader measure of generalized hostility, the association with violent attitudes became even more pronounced.
The research was conducted by a team at the University of California, Davis, as part of a larger project to track support for political violence in the U.S. over time. The researchers aimed to quantify how various types of bias contribute to a person’s willingness to justify or commit acts of political violence. They used the term “allophobia” to describe a generalized fear or hatred of others—an umbrella category that includes racism, antisemitism, xenophobia, Islamophobia, transphobia, hostile sexism, and homonegativity.
Concerns about the potential for widespread political violence in the United States have increased in recent years, particularly following the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, the attempted assassination of Donald Trump, the assassination of Democratic Minnesota state Rep. Melissa Hortman, and the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. While past research has suggested that individual forms of prejudice are linked to violent behavior, the new study is one of the first to quantify how these views relate to political violence specifically, and on a nationally representative scale.
The study’s findings are drawn from the second wave of an annual, nationally representative longitudinal survey, conducted between May 18 and June 8, 2023. A total of 9,385 adults completed the questionnaire, reflecting an 84 percent completion rate. The survey sample was weighted to mirror national demographics, with respondents averaging nearly 49 years of age. Just over half were women, and more than 60 percent identified as white and non-Hispanic.
Participants were asked to respond to a series of statements aimed at measuring prejudice toward various groups, including immigrants, Muslims, Jewish people, women, sexual minorities, gender-diverse individuals, and racial minorities. These questions were adapted from validated psychological scales but presented in shortened formats.
For example, to assess homonegativity, respondents rated their agreement with statements such as “Gay men and lesbian women should stop shoving their lifestyle down other people’s throats” and “Celebrations such as Gay Pride Day are ridiculous.” Racism was assessed with items like “Discrimination against whites is as big a problem as discrimination against Blacks and other minorities.”
Transphobia was evaluated through items including “I think there is something wrong with a person who says they are neither a man nor a woman,” and “I avoid people on the street whose gender is unclear to me.” Xenophobia was measured with statements such as “Interacting with immigrants makes me uneasy” and “I am afraid that our own culture will be lost with an increase in immigration.”
Islamophobia was probed with items like “Most Muslims living in the United States are more prone to violence than other people,” while antisemitism included agreement with the idea that “Jewish people have too much power in the media” or “talk about the Holocaust just to further their political agenda.” Hostile sexism was assessed using statements such as “Women seek to gain power by getting control over men” and “When women lose to men in a fair competition, they typically complain about being discriminated against.”
In addition to these measures, the survey included multiple questions about political violence. Respondents were asked how much they agreed with general statements such as, “True American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save our country,” and “The United States needs a civil war to set things right.” They were also asked whether they thought violence was justified in specific scenarios, such as stopping an election from being stolen, preventing illegal immigration, or protecting an “American way of life based on Western European traditions.”
Those who endorsed the use of violence were then asked about their personal willingness to damage property, threaten or injure someone, or even kill someone to achieve a political objective. Another set of items gauged how likely they were to use a firearm in such a situation, including openly carrying a gun, threatening someone with it, or shooting someone.
Among the seven forms of prejudice measured, homonegativity was the most prevalent, with 26.6 percent of respondents strongly agreeing with at least one related statement. Racist beliefs were strongly endorsed by 19.5 percent of participants, followed by 16.9 percent for transphobia and 9.8 percent for xenophobia. Hostile sexist views were strongly endorsed by 7.7 percent of respondents, while 5.0 percent expressed strong Islamophobic attitudes. Antisemitism was the least commonly endorsed, but still present, with 2.9 percent of respondents expressing strong agreement.
The researchers found that strong agreement with each type of prejudice was consistently associated with higher support for political violence. People who strongly agreed with Islamophobic statements, for example, were over 50 percentage points more likely to say that political violence was usually or always justified in at least one scenario. They were also about 12.5 percentage points more likely to say they would be willing to kill someone to achieve a political objective.
While Islamophobia showed the strongest individual link to violent attitudes, similar patterns were found across all seven forms of prejudice. The least prevalent forms of prejudice—such as antisemitism—tended to have the strongest connections to support for violence. In contrast, more commonly held biases like homonegativity had smaller but still significant associations. This pattern suggests that people who strongly endorse rarer prejudices may hold more extreme views overall, which could make them more prone to violent beliefs or behavior.
When the researchers combined all seven forms of prejudice into a single measure of “allophobia,” the associations with support for violence became even more pronounced. People who strongly agreed with multiple types of bias were significantly more likely to endorse statements such as “The United States needs a civil war to set things right” or “Our American way of life is disappearing so fast that we may have to use force to save it.” These individuals were also more likely to say they would be armed with a gun or even use one against someone in the future, if they believed the political situation warranted it.
“The vast majority of Americans reject these harmful beliefs, just as they reject political violence,” said lead author Garen Wintemute. “We cannot eradicate such beliefs, but we must work to prevent them from leading to acts of violence.”
The results suggest that people who harbor multiple forms of group-based hostility may pose a particularly high risk for endorsing or engaging in political violence. The authors compare the size of these associations to what they previously found among supporters of extremist groups like the Proud Boys or QAnon, as well as among people who frequently carry firearms in public.
Notably, the study also found that phobias were moderately to strongly correlated with each other. For example, people who held xenophobic beliefs were also likely to endorse Islamophobia, while those who expressed transphobic views tended to also agree with hostile sexist statements. This clustering of biases aligns with theories suggesting that people who support group-based hierarchies often generalize their dislike across multiple marginalized groups.
While the study’s findings are based on self-reported attitudes rather than actual behavior, the researchers suggest that such attitudes are meaningful indicators of risk. They argue that people who strongly endorse these prejudices should be considered high-risk not just for targeted hate crimes, but for political violence more broadly. The connection appears to extend beyond group-specific animosity and into a more general willingness to use force in the political realm.
The authors note that while deep-seated prejudices may be resistant to change, there may still be ways to reduce the risk that these beliefs lead to violence. One approach could be to “uncouple” hostile beliefs from violent behaviors, possibly by using social pressure or persuasion. For example, previous survey waves have shown that individuals who initially supported the idea of civil war were often willing to reconsider their stance if family members urged them to. In other cases, traditional threat assessment or law enforcement interventions might be necessary.
The researchers also point to potential policy implications. In particular, they suggest that firearm permitting processes and extreme risk protection orders could take into account evidence of hostility toward marginalized groups, especially when combined with prior threats or violent behavior. California has recently implemented such a policy for its gun violence restraining orders.
Still, the study has limitations. Because it is cross-sectional, it cannot establish causal relationships. The researchers acknowledge the potential for sampling error, response bias, and other issues common to survey research. Social desirability bias may have led some participants to underreport their support for violence or their prejudiced beliefs. The findings may also have shifted since the time of data collection, given recent events that may influence public opinion.
The researchers emphasize that their results reflect attitudes held at the population level, rather than predicting any one person’s future actions. They argue that identifying clusters of beliefs associated with political violence can help inform prevention strategies and improve public safety.
The study, “Fear, loathing, and support for political violence in the United States: findings from a nationally representative survey,” was authored by Garen J. Wintemute, Bradley Velasquez, Aaron B. Shev, Elizabeth A. Tomsich, Mona A. Wright, Paul M. Reeping, Sonia L. Robinson, Daniel J. Tancredi, and Veronica A. Pear.
