Photo Credit: Mohammad Mardani
Scientific Frontline: Extended "At a Glance" Summary: The Two Faces of Extremism
The Core Concept: Human readiness for intergroup violence is not a unified mindset, but is rather driven by two fundamentally distinct psychological motivations: defensive extremism and offensive extremism.
Key Distinction/Mechanism: Defensive extremism is motivated by a desire to protect an in-group from perceived external threats and is broadly considered more morally acceptable by the general public. Conversely, offensive extremism is driven by a desire to conquer, exert power, and establish group dominance, and is directly linked to severe macrolevel societal dysfunction.
Origin/History: This dichotomy was established in a large-scale 2026 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). Led by Professor Jonas R. Kunst and involving researchers from Flinders University, the preregistered study analyzed data from 18,128 participants across 58 countries.
Major Frameworks/Components:
- Defensive Extremism Profile: Highly prevalent across most nations; associated with individuals exhibiting high narcissism and manipulative tendencies who may strategically exploit the perceived legitimacy of "protective" violence.
- Offensive Extremism Profile: Less prevalent but highly destructive; strongly linked to a desire for group dominance, religious fundamentalism, and unexpectedly, liberal political identification (potentially reflecting a willingness to forcefully disrupt the status quo).
- Shared Psychological Traits: Psychopathy was found to be positively correlated with both forms of violent intent.
- Societal Correlation: Countries with higher offensive violent intentions display lower democracy indices and higher scores on the Global Terrorism Index.
Branch of Science: Behavioral Psychology, Social Psychology, and Political Science.
Future Application: The formulation of tailored prevention and intervention policies for violent extremism. Counter-terrorism specialists can move away from uniform strategies to specifically address the unique underlying motives driving individuals toward either protective vigilance or dominance-seeking violence.
Why It Matters: This distinction proves that extreme intergroup violence cannot be treated as a monolithic issue. By mapping these distinct psychological signatures to real-world societal health, policymakers can better understand why offensive extremist intentions directly escalate into political terror and terrorism, allowing for more precise and effective global security interventions.
A new study spanning 58 countries reveals that human readiness for intergroup violence is not a single or unified mindset but driven by two fundamentally different psychological motivations.
The research to be published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal demonstrates that violent extremist intentions are driven either by defensive extremism – which aims to protect a group from perceived threats – or offensive extremism, which seeks to establish group dominance and expand influence.
Led by Norwegian researcher Professor Jonas R Kunst and an international team of more than 100 researchers including Flinders University Professor Emma Thomas and Emily Haines, the preregistered study analyzed data from 18,128 participants globally.
The findings indicate that defensive extremist intentions are consistently more prevalent, showing higher levels of endorsement than offensive intentions in 56 out of the 58 surveyed nations. This suggests a widespread tendency to find protective violence more morally acceptable than violence aimed at conquest.
Professor Thomas says: “There is a lot of public speculation about the motives for engagement in violent extremism, and it is often spoken about as though it were a single, uniform issue. Yet our findings indicate that the motivation to use violence to defend one’s group is psychologically distinct from the use of violence to exert power over others.
“This distinction matters, because these discrete forms of extremism have distinct psychological signatures and therefore call for different forms of prevention and intervention.”
The study uncovered that these two forms of extremism appeal to different types of people. Individuals exhibiting high levels of narcissism and a strong tendency to manipulate others demonstrated particularly strong inclinations toward defensive extremism.
The researchers suggest that calculating individuals might strategically exploit the perceived legitimacy of violence portrayed as protective. Conversely, people with a strong desire for group dominance and high levels of religious fundamentalism were more strongly linked to offensive extremism.
Lead author Professor Kunst, from the BI Norwegian Business School, adds psychopathy was positively related to both types of violent intentions. Furthermore, liberal political group identification was unexpectedly associated with higher offensive but lower defensive intentions, possibly reflecting a willingness to disrupt the status quo.
“Crucially, the distinction between these two mentalities maps onto real-world societal health. The research shows that offensive extremist intentions are linked to macrolevel societal dysfunction, including higher rates of political terror, internal conflicts, and the impact of terrorism,” he says.
Countries with higher scores on the Global Terrorism Index and lower scores on democracy and human development indices exhibited higher offensive violent intentions. Defensive intentions, despite being more widely endorsed, did not show these same significant correlations with macrolevel societal violence.
These findings carry profound implications for programs aimed at countering violent extremism. Because offensive and defensive intentions operate through distinct psychological pathways, the authors suggest that policymakers and intervention specialists must move away from uniform strategies.
Tailored interventions are required to effectively address the specific underlying motives driving individuals toward either protective vigilance or dominance-seeking violence.
Funding: The study was funded by the National Science Centre in Poland.
Published in journal: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Authors: Jonas R. Kunst, Tomasz Besta, Michał Jaśkiewicz, Anna Natalia Gajda, Markus Sanden, Mina Marie Flatebø, Sulaiman Olanrewaju Adebayo, Marios Adonis, Collins Badu Agyemang, Raymond Agyenim Boateng, Serap Arslan Akfirat, Samir Al-adawi, Chiara Ambrosio, Gulnaz Anjum, John Jamir Benzon R. Aruta, Ivars Austers, Oumar Barry, Brock Bastian, Maja Becker, Michael Bender, Nora Cornelia Glerud Benningstad, Islam Borinca, Göksu Celikkol, Jiří Čeněk, Trawin Chaleeraktrakoon, Phatthanakit Chobthamkit, Hoon-Seok Choi, Suyeong Choi, Patricia Ciordas, Ann-Cathrin Coenen, Aleksandra Cupta, Piyanjali de Zoysa, Sandesh Dhakal, Lauren E. Duncan, Tuğçenaz Elcil, Barkan Eskiili, Edgardo Etchezahar, Renata Franc, Silvia Galdi, Magdalena Garvanova, Paul Gill, Augusto Gnisci, Angel Gómez, Talía Gómez Yepes, Igor Grossmann, Emily A. Haines, Fatjona Haka, Boaz Hameiri, Imaduddin Hamzah, Mai Helmy, Roland Imhoff, Shanmukh Kamble, Fiona Kazarovytska, Anna Kende, Narine Khachatryan, Sasha Y. Kimel, Jack W. Klein, Adam Komisarof, David Lacko, Timo Juhani Lajunen, Barbara Lášticová, Claudio López-Calle, Wilson López-López, Barbara Kalebić Maglica, Romualdas Malinauskas, Sona Manusyan, Khatuna Martskvishvili, Gustave Adolphe Messanga, Marta Miklikowska, Jelena Minic, Tamara Mohorić, Francesca Mottola, Silvana Mula, Pasquale Musso, Dieynaba Gabrielle Ndiaye, Félix Neto, Joana Neto, Laina Ngom Dieng, Ihuoma Faith Obioma, Tosin Tunrayo Olonisakin, Simon Ozer, Penny Panagiotopoulou, Beata Pastwa-Wojciechowska, Vassilis Pavlopoulos, Tomislav Pavlović, Inha Petrovska, Andrzej Piotrowski, Xenia Daniela Poslon, Lotte Pummerer, Mahima Raina, Jano Ramos-Diaz, Vilja Robertsson, Bettina Rottweiler, David L. Sam, Rosa Scardigno, Marion K. Schulmeyer, Anna Stefaniak, Anna Studzinska, Mark J. M. Sullman, Marcin Szulc, Willy Taffo Nemboué, Ergyul Tair, Nicole Tausch, Narendra Singh Thagunna, Emma F. Thomas, Joaquín Ungaretti, Colette Van Laar, Žermēna Vazne, Alexandra Vázquez, Jose Villanueva-Alvarado, Anna Wlodarczyk, Kumar Yogeeswaran, and Milan Obaidi.
Source/Credit: Flinders University
Reference Number: psy032626_01