The terms terrorism – politically motivated violence – and violent extremism are often used interchangeably in the media and by various experts. In psychology, violent extremism is more generally understood as group-based violence, or violent, non-normative collective behaviour. However, psychology researchers have not been able to agree on what makes some people more likely to support or engage in violent extremism.

Joanna Lindström's doctoral thesis, 'Susceptibility to Violent Extremism – Integrating Personality and Social Psychological Factors', aims to increase knowledge of the psychological basis of violent extremism and group-based violence by integrating the role of personality with social psychological factors.

Previous research on the psychology of violent extremism has often focused on social issues and explanations, with an emphasis on Islamist extremism and terrorist acts.

A broader picture

During Joanna Lindström's time as a PhD student, the Black Lives Matters (BLM) movement exploded, and right-wing extremist violence also increased, manifesting itself in the storming of the Capitol in Washington, among other things. Joanna, who had previously been interested in Islamist extremism during her doctoral studies, wondered whether the same personality and social psychological factors could be behind these different types of violence. She also wondered about the similarities with other types of group-based violence that do not necessarily have political roots, such as football hooliganism.

– My thesis therefore took on a broader focus and I started studying other types of extremism. I became obsessed with contributing to a more nuanced understanding of why some people resort to violence for their group.

Different groups – same explanations?

In her research, Joanna has tried to find psychological explanations for why some people are more likely to engage in violent extremism by looking at different types of group violence: jihadism, right-wing extremism, violent protests and football hooliganism.

Through serious of surveys of different groups in society, such as anti-immigration Swedes, Black Lives Matters and football supporters, Joanna has explored the links between different social-psychological factors, such as group identification and feelings of injustice, and personality traits and attitudes to violence.

– I found that the perception that one's group is unfairly treated, known as “group-based relative deprivation”, can be a basis for believing that violent acts are justified or for committing violent acts oneself.

Personality plays a role

In her thesis, Joanna has concluded that personality traits need to be taken into account to understand why some individuals support or engage in group violence and violent extremism.

– There are common personality and social psychological factors that underpin very different forms of group-based violence such as right-wing extremism, violent protests in the Black Lives Matters movement and football violence. These factors include a strong identification with a group to which one belongs or supports, a perception that one's group is unfairly disadvantaged relative to other groups, and a personality characterized by low honesty-humility and low emotionality.

Honesty-humility measures sincerity, humility and lack of greed or manipulative behaviour. Emotionality measures the degree of emotional vulnerability and tendency to experience anxiety and worry.

One explanation for why individuals with low honesty-humility and emotionality are more likely to support violence for their cause may be a general tendency towards anti-social behavior, a sense of superiority and thus entitlement to privilege, as well as being less fearful and anxious about the risks of their behavior.

Research that does not take personality into account misses an important piece of the violent extremism puzzle.

A perception of unfair treatment

Studies also suggest that individuals who advocate rhetoric in which their group is disadvantaged or treated differently from other groups and have a general tendency to engage in anti-social or risky behaviors may be more likely to turn to violent extremism. The perception of the group does not always match the reality or the actual situation of the individual.

– Feelings of injustice can be experienced even if one has not been victimised or oppressed, in non-political contexts and even if one belongs to a structurally privileged group.

In two other studies, Joanna Lindström found that among white Americans (but not black Americans) and among men (but not women), there is a link between low humility and the belief that one's own group is unfairly disadvantaged relative to other groups in society. Humility measures a person's perception of themselves as better or worse than others.

– This may explain why some people support the rhetoric of, for example, the so-called ‘alt-right’ and involuntary celibacy ‘incel’ movements.

Why is this research important?

– Because both social-psychological factors and basic personality variables explain why individuals support group-based violence for their cause. Research that does not take personality into account misses an important piece of the violent extremism puzzle.

What will be the next step?

– I have developed some experimental studies that look more closely at the relationship between personality traits and the feeling that one's group is unfairly disadvantaged. I will applying for research grants to carry out the studies and continue along the same lines. During the autumn, I will also give a guest lecture on violent extremism at the police academy at Södertörn University.

 

Read the thesis

Read Joanna's article about her research in The Conversation