New research conducted by the University of St Andrews indicates that the human predisposition toward intergroup violence does not stem from a singular mental framework. This comprehensive study, which involved over one hundred researchers across fifty-eight countries, demonstrates that violent extremist intentions are driven by two fundamentally distinct psychological motivations. The researchers distinguish between defensive extremism, intended to protect a group from perceived external threats, and offensive extremism, which seeks to assert group dominance and expand systemic influence.
Global patterns in extremist intentions
The findings of this preregistered study, based on data from 18,128 participants globally, reveal that defensive extremist intentions are consistently more prevalent than offensive ones. In fifty-six of the fifty-eight nations examined, defensive measures received higher levels of endorsement, suggesting a widespread tendency to view protective violence as more morally acceptable than violence aimed at conquest. This distinction highlights a significant disparity in how different forms of aggression are perceived and justified across diverse cultures.
The investigation further suggests that these two forms of extremism attract different personality types and ideological leanings. Individuals exhibiting high levels of narcissism and a proclivity for interpersonal manipulation showed a marked inclination toward defensive extremism, as calculating individuals may strategically exploit the perceived legitimacy of protective violence.
Conversely, offensive extremism was more closely linked to a strong desire for group dominance and high levels of religious fundamentalism, while psychopathy correlated positively with both types of violent intent. Notably, identification with liberal political groups was unexpectedly associated with higher offensive intentions and lower defensive ones, potentially reflecting a strategic willingness to subvert the existing status quo.
Institutional perspectives on intergroup violence
Data collection for the Scottish participants of this extensive study was spearheaded by Dr. Anna Stefaniak and Dr. Nicole Tausch of the School of Psychology and Neuroscience at the University of St Andrews. Dr. Stefaniak emphasized that research into interpersonal violence has long acknowledged that aggression manifests in various forms shaped by distinct causes.
This recent work extends that principle to intergroup dynamics, demonstrating that such violence is not a unitary phenomenon. By identifying the diverse typologies of intergroup aggression and their underlying drivers, researchers believe society can take a significant step toward developing more effective and nuanced responses.
Lead author Jonas R. Kunst of the BI Norwegian Business School underscored the importance of distinguishing between the psychological impulse to protect one’s group and the drive to dominate others. While violent extremism is frequently treated as a singular concept, the data confirms that these two motivations appeal to different psychological profiles. Consequently, addressing these behaviors requires tailored intervention strategies that account for the unique nature of each extremist mindset. This distinction is critical for practitioners and policymakers seeking to mitigate the rise of radicalization.
The distinction between these two mentalities has profound consequences for the stability of a society. Research indicates that offensive extremist intentions are closely linked to large-scale social dysfunction, showing a positive correlation with political terrorism, internal conflict, and the overall impact of terrorist activity.
Nations with higher rankings on the Global Terrorism Index and lower scores in democracy and human development indices consistently exhibited elevated levels of offensive violent intent. Conversely, while defensive intentions are more widely endorsed across populations, they do not demonstrate the same significant statistical correlation with broader societal violence.
The perceived legitimacy of defensive violence
Dr. Nicole Tausch of the School of Psychology and Neuroscience at the University of St Andrews observed that the widespread acceptance of defensive violence over offensive measures suggests a common tendency to root intergroup aggression in a desire for collective protection.
However, this finding also highlights a significant societal risk, as framing violent actions in defensive terms can serve to rationalize and justify even highly questionable conduct. This psychological framing may inadvertently provide a moral veneer to actions that would otherwise be condemned, complicating the efforts of those monitoring extremist rhetoric.
These research findings carry profound implications for the design and implementation of programs intended to counter violent extremism. Given that offensive and defensive intentions operate through distinct psychological pathways, the study authors argue that policymakers and intervention specialists must move away from standardized, one-size-fits-all strategies.
Instead, there is an urgent need for targeted interventions that specifically address the underlying motivations driving individuals toward either protective vigilance or dominance-seeking violence. By tailoring responses to these unique psychological drivers, practitioners may more effectively mitigate the specific triggers of radicalization.
The study is published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
