New study sheds light on the psychological roots of collective violence

People who hold authoritarian or dominance-based ideological beliefs may be more likely to support certain forms of political violence—but which type depends on the belief. A new study published in Psychology of Violence found that individuals in Lebanon with strong authoritarian attitudes were less likely to support violence against political leaders, while those with strong social dominance motives were more likely to support violence against outgroup members.

While many studies in political psychology have explored prejudice or discrimination, relatively few have focused on more extreme outcomes like collective violence. Much of the existing work has also been limited to populations in Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) societies. Lebanon, with its history of civil war and complex sectarian system, provided a valuable setting to test whether ideological beliefs predict support for different types of political violence.

The research focused on two well-established ideological traits: right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation. Right-wing authoritarianism refers to a tendency to value conformity, obedience to authority, and social order. People high in this trait often express hostility toward those seen as disrupting traditional norms. Social dominance orientation reflects a desire to maintain hierarchical group relationships, with one’s own group in a dominant position over others.

Building on recent research, the authors distinguished between two forms of collective violence. “Diffuse” violence refers to attacks against ordinary members of an outgroup. “Upward” violence targets the outgroup’s leaders or symbols of power. For example, vandalizing a statue of a political figure might be considered upward violence, while physically attacking members of a rival group would fall under diffuse violence.

“As a Lebanese political psychologist from the Middle East, I’ve long been interested in understanding what drives people to justify or support acts of collective violence, especially in politically fragile or polarized contexts,” said study author Ramzi Abou-Ismail, a senior fellow at the Center for Policy Action at the Lebanese American University. “This study emerged from that broader inquiry, focusing on how underlying ideological worldviews like authoritarianism and social dominance orientation shape the way people react to perceived group threats and societal change. Lebanon’s complex political reality was also a key contextual motivator for this research.”

To examine how these ideological traits predicted support for different forms of violence, the researchers surveyed two community samples in Lebanon. The first sample included 596 adults, and the second included 1,035. Participants came from various religious sects, including Christian Maronites, Sunni and Shia Muslims, Druze, and others. They responded to a series of statements using a five-point agreement scale. These statements measured their levels of authoritarianism, social dominance, and endorsement of collective violence.

In both studies, the researchers found that authoritarian beliefs were associated with reduced support for violence aimed at outgroup leaders. People who strongly valued authority and social order were less likely to view upward violence as acceptable. In contrast, social dominance orientation was positively associated with support for diffuse violence. People who endorsed hierarchical group structures were more likely to justify violence against outgroup members.

These results were consistent across both samples, though there were some nuanced differences between the studies. In the first study, which used less reliable scales for authoritarianism, the results were inconclusive regarding that trait’s relationship with diffuse violence.

The second study used improved measures and found a significant positive association between authoritarianism and support for violence against outgroup members. This supports the idea that authoritarians may approve of violence aimed at preserving social order and punishing perceived threats from ordinary outgroup members—while still opposing actions that disrupt authority structures.

The researchers also found a more complex pattern when it came to social dominance and support for upward violence. In the first study, people high in dominance orientation were somewhat less likely to support violence against outgroup leaders. In the second study, the relationship was not statistically significant. The authors suggest this inconsistency may stem from the ambiguous nature of dominance in Lebanon’s sectarian political system. When group status is unstable or unclear, the desire to dominate may lead to different responses depending on perceived threats or opportunities for power.

Overall, the findings support the idea that authoritarianism and social dominance are distinct belief systems with different implications for intergroup conflict. Authoritarianism tends to promote social conformity and obedience, which may lead to support for violence aimed at maintaining order—but not for actions that threaten leadership structures. Social dominance orientation, on the other hand, is more concerned with reinforcing power over other groups, which may include justification for aggression toward outgroup members.

“One striking finding was how differently these two constructs operated even when the outcome—support for collective violence—was the same,” Abou-Ismail told PsyPost. “We often assume that people who support violent action are cut from the same psychological cloth, but this research shows it’s more nuanced. Authoritarians may oppose some forms of violence if they disrupt order, while high-dominance individuals might support violence selectively, especially if it reinforces dominance.”

The study helps explain why some people may be more inclined to justify collective violence, depending on their ideological worldview and the perceived function of the violence. It also shows that people do not support all forms of violence equally, even when motivated by group-based animosity.

This research builds on prior work by showing that the psychological drivers of political violence vary depending on the target of the violence. By examining these distinctions in a high-conflict, non-Western context, the study offers a more globally relevant perspective on political behavior and intergroup aggression.

“The core takeaway is that not all support for violence comes from the same psychological place,” said Abou-Ismail. “People who score high in authoritarianism are more likely to support violence when they perceive a threat to social order or traditional values. Meanwhile, those high in social dominance orientation are more likely to justify violence that preserves group-based hierarchies and inequality. This means interventions to reduce violence need to be tailored to address these distinct motivations.”

The study has some limitations. “As with any cross-sectional survey, the findings point to associations, not causality. Additionally, our sample was drawn from a specific sociopolitical context, which may limit generalizability. Future research should explore how these dynamics play out across different societies and in experimental or longitudinal designs,” Abou-Ismail said.

“One of the goals of this research is to move beyond the ‘good versus bad people’ framing and instead understand the underlying belief systems that make some individuals more susceptible to supporting violent action in the name of group or state. By unpacking these motivations, we hope to inform both academic debates and practical strategies for violence prevention.”

The study, “Authoritarianism and Social Dominance as Differential Predictors of Individuals’ Support for Collective Violence,” was authored by Ramzi Abou-Ismail, Aleksandra Cichocka, Joseph Phillips, and Nikhil K. Sengupta.