A recent study published in Injury Epidemiology finds that the size of a person’s social network may be linked to their support for political violence in the United States. According to findings, people with either very few or very many close connections show a higher likelihood of endorsing violence as a means to achieve political goals. These findings suggest that both isolation and large social circles may play unexpected roles in political attitudes, particularly when paired with heavy social media use or distrust in government.
Previous studies have suggested that social networks can influence various types of violent behavior, but most research has focused outside the United States or on general violence rather than specifically politically motivated violence. The authors wanted to fill this knowledge gap by examining how social networks, which provide support, information, and a sense of belonging, might relate to political violence in a modern United States context.
“The threat of political violence is a growing concern in the United States, and we are still learning about salient risk factors,” said study author Julia P. Schleimer, a research data analyst at the Violence Prevention Research Program at UC Davis Health.
“My colleagues and I were interested in studying social networks in relation to political violence risk because social networks are both theoretically and practically important. By that I mean, theory and prior research give us reason to expect that people with very few or very many strong social connections may be at greater risk for political violence, and, at the same time, social networks themselves are modifiable and can be the target of interventions to reduce risk.”
To investigate this, researchers conducted a cross-sectional survey with a representative sample of 8,620 adults from across the United States. The survey, administered in May and June 2022, sought to capture the range of strong social connections participants maintained and how this related to their attitudes toward various types of violence. Participants were recruited from the Ipsos KnowledgePanel, an online panel representative of the United States population, ensuring broad demographic diversity.
First, participants reported the number of strong social connections they maintained—defined as close relationships with personal or work-related individuals they communicated with regularly. These social networks ranged from zero strong connections to fifty or more. Next, participants were asked to reflect on their attitudes toward both general and political violence. Specifically, they were questioned about their support for violence in achieving political aims, their general justification of political violence, and their willingness to personally engage in political violence under certain conditions.
Participants also answered questions related to general non-political violence, which helped contextualize their stance on violence beyond strictly political motives. In addition to these primary questions, the researchers included factors that might influence the relationship between social network size and attitudes toward political violence, such as the use of social media as a major news source, perceptions of the government as a threat, and participants’ racial or ethnic backgrounds.
The results showed that both ends of the social network spectrum were linked to a higher likelihood of supporting or engaging in political violence. Those with no strong social connections were more than twice as likely to consider political violence justified compared to those with one to four strong connections. Participants with extensive social networks—defined as fifty or more connections—were also more likely than those with smaller networks to see political violence as justifiable in at least some situations. This group was also more likely to express personal willingness to use political violence.
These associations varied depending on participants’ use of social media for news, views on government, and racial or ethnic identity. For instance, participants with large social networks who relied heavily on social media as their primary news source showed higher support for and willingness to engage in political violence. Similarly, participants who lacked strong connections and identified as non-Hispanic white individuals tended to support political violence more than other demographic groups.
Additionally, the researchers found that participants who viewed the government as an adversary were more likely to endorse political violence, especially if they also had very large or no strong social connections. In contrast, participants who felt aligned with the government but reported low levels of social connection still tended to support political violence.
The study also highlighted the influence of social isolation and racial or ethnic marginalization, particularly among non-white participants, on views about political violence. Those with few connections but who identified as marginalized tended to express higher support for political violence, suggesting that social isolation and racial identity may compound feelings of resentment or alienation, potentially intensifying support for violent methods of political expression.
“Our findings, combined with a growing body of evidence, suggest that support for and personal willingness to engage in political violence are patterned by social conditions, including how many close connections we have, where we get our news and information, how we perceive the government, and our social identities,” Schleimer told PsyPost.
“All of this points towards opportunities for interventions to prevent political violence. For example, interventions to reduce loneliness and increase social connection range from direct individual-level interventions (e.g., social skills training and education) to those geared toward broader communities and the social and physical environment (e.g., community centers, parks, community mobilization, cultural activities, etc.).
“Further, because many individuals at heightened risk of political violence involvement may be open to change with the right message and messenger, those who reject political violence can engage with individuals experiencing social isolation, alienation, or outgroup contempt,” Schleimer said. “Messages—including from influential public figures and leaders—of anti-violence, peace, and humanization can also be spread through social media and other channels.”
The study’s limitations include its reliance on self-reported data, which may be subject to personal bias. Additionally, the survey’s cross-sectional design does not allow for conclusions about cause and effect. Further research should examine how social connections evolve over time and impact an individual’s views, especially given that current social networks are rapidly shifting due to digital and political changes.
“We at the University of California, Davis are building out a research program focused on political violence from a public health perspective,” Schleimer said. “Our group has published a number of papers on the topic so far, and we are working on and planning many more.”
The study, “Social network size and endorsement of political violence in the US,” was authored by Julia P. Schleimer, Paul M. Reeping, Sonia L. Robinson, and Garen J. Wintemute.
