![[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/2024/07/rifle-750x375.jpg)
Political violence has become a pressing concern in contemporary society, particularly following the attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump on July 13, 2024. This incident raises critical questions about the psychological factors that drive individuals and groups to endorse or engage in such actions.
Recent research has provided valuable insights into the underlying motivations and traits that contribute to the support for political violence. Here, we explore the findings from seven recent studies that shed light on this complex issue.
A Sense of Victimhood Heightens Support for Violence
A recent series of studies has revealed a strong connection between an individual’s tendency to feel victimized, termed “trait victimhood,” and their support for political violence. Published in the journal Psychology of Violence, the research shows that personal perceptions of victimhood can significantly influence attitudes toward violent political actions. This exploration into trait victimhood adds to existing knowledge by suggesting that those who consistently feel victimized in daily life are more likely to support political violence, especially when they are also searching for meaning in life.
The research was conducted through three distinct studies. The first study surveyed 393 participants from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, finding a significant correlation between trait victimhood and support for political violence. The second study expanded the sample size to 1,000 participants, recruited through YouGov, and confirmed these findings while also examining intergroup competitive victimhood. It showed that trait victimhood was directly linked to support for political violence and indirectly through competitive victimhood, though it did not correlate with non-violent political actions. The third study used experimental manipulation to establish a causal relationship, demonstrating that recalling instances of intergroup competitive victimhood increased support for political violence, especially among those high in trait victimhood.
Partisan Bias in Judgments of Political Violence
Published in American Politics Research, another study found that partisan bias significantly affects people’s judgment, leading them to prefer harsher penalties for political violence against those who share their political affiliation compared to political rivals. This research highlights the potential for political violence to exacerbate divisions and influence public judgment in the highly polarized political climate of the United States.
The study involved 342 students from a large southwestern university who were presented with a fictional report about a student sending death threats to a history professor over perceived grading bias. The key variable was the political affiliation of the professor, which was randomly varied as Democrat, Republican, or unspecified. Participants reported their emotions and preferred penalties for the perpetrator after reading the report. The findings showed significant partisan bias: participants preferred harsher penalties when the victim shared their political affiliation (a copartisan) compared to when the victim was an opposing party member (an outparty member).
Firearm Ownership and Political Aggression
Recent research has also highlighted a concerning association between firearm ownership and support for, or willingness to engage in, political violence. Published in JAMA Network Open, the study reveals that individuals who recently purchased firearms, frequently carry them in public, or own assault-type rifles are more inclined to support or participate in political violence compared to other firearm owners and non-owners.
The study utilized data from a large, nationally representative survey conducted by Ipsos between May and June 2022, including 12,851 respondents. The respondents were categorized into three groups: firearm owners, non-owners with no firearms at home, and non-owners with firearms in their homes. The survey included questions about firearm ownership, types of firearms owned, carrying behavior, and attitudes towards the use of violence for political objectives. Results showed that 38.8% of firearm owners believed that violence was generally or always justified to advance political objectives, compared to 29.8% of non-owners. This support was even higher among specific subgroups, such as those who owned assault-type rifles (42.3%), recent firearm purchasers (43.9%), and those who regularly carry firearms in public (55.9%).
The study also found that recent firearm purchasers and those who frequently carried firearms were more likely to express a willingness to engage in acts of political violence, including killing to advance political objectives. Notably, 62.5% of individuals who always or nearly always carry firearms believed they would be armed in a hypothetical future situation where political violence was justified, and 8.8% thought it very or extremely likely they would actually shoot someone. Despite these concerning trends, the study also highlighted that majorities of both firearm owners and non-owners predominantly reject political violence, suggesting potential for joint efforts to publicly repudiate political violence and deter likely perpetrators.
Distrust and Radicalization Among Pandemic Gun Buyers
Similarly, a recent study published in Political Research Quarterly found that individuals who purchased firearms during the COVID-19 pandemic exhibit higher levels of distrust in government, belief in conspiracy theories, participation in protests, and support for political violence compared to pre-existing gun owners and non-gun owners. The research, which surveyed over 32,000 respondents across three waves between December 2020 and July 2021, aimed to understand the motivations and behaviors of pandemic gun buyers in this context.
The study found that pandemic gun buyers were significantly less trusting of government institutions than other groups. They were more likely to endorse conspiracy theories, including beliefs in COVID-19 cures being withheld, microchips in vaccines, QAnon, and the idea that the 2020 election was stolen. Additionally, these individuals showed higher rates of protest participation, particularly in demonstrations against COVID-19 restrictions and the legitimacy of the 2020 election. Notably, about 10% of pandemic gun buyers attended protests against racism and police violence, challenging the stereotype of gun owners as uniformly conservative.
Perhaps most concerningly, the study revealed that pandemic gun buyers were more likely to support and potentially engage in political violence. A significant portion expressed positive feelings towards the January 6th Capitol attack and approved of using violence if the 2020 election was perceived as unfair. The research indicates that while the majority of gun owners do not endorse political violence, the subset of pandemic gun buyers who do pose a significant concern due to their distrust in government and willingness to act on their beliefs.
Antisocial Traits and Group Violence
Research from Poland, published in Personality and Individual Differences, found a link between antisocial tendencies and support for group violence. The study suggests that individuals who exhibit traits such as low empathy, callousness, and poor impulse control are more likely to support or engage in political radicalization and violent actions.
The study involved 877 participants from various universities and colleges in Poland, who completed the Triarchical Measure of Psychopathy, assessing traits of boldness, meanness, and disinhibition. Participants also reported their views on engaging in non-violent and violent collective actions for their country and for right-wing and left-wing groups. The researchers found that while psychopathic traits did not correlate with support for moderate, non-violent actions, traits such as meanness and disinhibition were linked to support for violent actions. Specifically, meanness was associated with support for violent social change across different groups, and disinhibition was linked to violent actions for right-wing groups, particularly among strong group identifiers.
MAGA Republicans and Endorsement of Violence
A recent study published in PLOS One found that a specific group of pro-Trump Republicans, known as MAGA Republicans, are more likely than other groups to endorse political violence. This group, making up about 15% of the US adult population, holds distinct beliefs on race and democracy, significantly differing from other Republican factions and non-Republicans.
The research, based on a survey conducted by Ipsos between May 13 and June 2, 2022, involved 8,620 participants from a nationally representative group. It included questions about democracy, American society, race and ethnicity, and attitudes towards both non-political and political violence. The study found that MAGA Republicans were more likely to perceive a serious threat to American democracy, endorse having a strong leader over maintaining democracy, and support armed citizens patrolling polling places. They also showed higher belief in the ‘great replacement’ theory and QAnon conspiracy theories compared to other Republican groups and non-Republicans.
Regarding political violence, 58.2% of MAGA Republicans believed it was justified to advance specific political objectives, significantly higher than other groups. However, personal willingness to engage in such violence was low across all groups, including MAGA Republicans. The study suggests that while MAGA Republicans are more supportive of political violence conceptually, there is a discrepancy between this support and their personal willingness to participate.
Feelings of Deprivation Exacerbates Dark Triad’s Link to Extremism
Research published in Behavioral Sciences of Terrorism and Political Aggression revealed that individuals who feel deprived and exhibit antisocial tendencies, known as the Dark Triad (Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and narcissism), are particularly supportive of political violence. In two studies, researchers explored how subjective perceptions of inequality and Dark Triad personality traits contribute to political radicalization.
In the first study, 279 Croatian university students were assessed, and findings indicated that those with a heightened sense of deprivation and higher levels of Dark Triad traits were more supportive of using threats, vandalism, physical force, and firearms against politicians. Statements reflecting a sense of deprivation included sentiments like “Ordinary people will always be at the bottom,” while Dark Triad traits were linked to agreement with statements such as “I tend to manipulate others to get my way.”
To validate these results, a second study involving 461 participants from the general Croatian population was conducted, which confirmed the initial findings. Both studies found that individuals with these traits and perceptions were more likely to support violent actions against unethical political behaviors. The research shows that both perceptions of context (group deprivation) and individual dispositions (Dark Triad traits) play significant roles in radicalization.
