News

New research published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) shows that intentions to engage in violent extremist behaviour are driven by two fundamentally different psychological motivations. The first is defensive extremism, aimed at protecting one’s own group from perceived threats, and the second is offensive extremism, which seeks to dominate one’s group and expand its influence.

The study was led by Jonas R. Kunst of the University of Oslo, in collaboration with an international team of more than 100 researchers, including Barbara Lášticová and Xenia Daniela Poslon from the Institute for Research in Social Communication of the SAS. The pre-registered study analysed data from 18,128 respondents across 58 countries worldwide. The results show that intentions to engage in defensive extremism are consistently more widespread, with higher levels of support than offensive intentions in 56 of the 58 countries studied. This suggests that violence perceived as defensive is more morally acceptable than violence driven by aggression.

“This finding is particularly important in the current period, marked by multiple conflicts and growing social polarisation. It shows that violence framed as defence can be more easily accepted by the public, creating space for its legitimisation in political discourse. Presenting violence as protection of one’s own group can be a powerful tool for gaining public support,” said Barbara Lášticová from the Institute for Research in Social Communication of the SAS.

The study also showed that these two forms of extremism appeal to different types of individuals. People with higher levels of narcissism and a stronger tendency to manipulate others showed a greater inclination toward defensive extremism, possibly using defensive framing to justify violence strategically. In contrast, individuals with a strong desire for group dominance and higher levels of religious fundamentalism were significantly more inclined toward offensive extremism. Psychopathy was positively associated with both types of violent intentions. An interesting finding was that liberal political identification was linked to higher offensive but lower defensive intentions, suggesting a greater willingness to challenge the status quo.

Importantly, the distinction between these two types of motivations also manifests at the societal level. The research shows that offensive extremist intentions are associated with broader societal dysfunction, including higher levels of political terror, internal conflict, and the impacts of terrorism. Respondents from countries with higher scores on the Global Terrorism Index and lower levels of democracy and human development exhibited higher levels of offensive violent intent. Defensive intent, despite being more widespread, did not show such strong associations with macro-level violence.

“Large international studies of this kind are extremely valuable because they allow us to identify general patterns across different societies and cultural contexts. The scale of the sample and the comparability of the data increase the reliability of the findings and enable meaningful generalisation,” notes Xenia Daniela Poslon from the Institute for Research in Social Communication of the SAS.

These findings have important implications for programs aimed at preventing violent extremism. Since offensive and defensive motivations operate through different psychological mechanisms, the authors emphasise that effective interventions must be tailored to the specific drivers behind each type of violent intent.

“If violence is increasingly framed as legitimate self-defence, it may gradually become normalised in public discourse, with potential long-term consequences for democracy,” concludes Barbara Lášticová.

The National Science Centre in Poland funded the study. In Slovakia, it was supported by grants APVV-23-0119 and VEGA 22/102/2, administered at the Institute for Research in Social Communication of the Slovak Academy of Sciences.

Prepared by: Xenia Daniela Poslon,Institute for Research in Social Communication, SAS

Photo: unsplash.com/vegonaise