Photo Credit: Christian Lue
Scientific Frontline: Extended "At a Glance" Summary: The Two Faces of Extremism
The Core Concept: Violent extremism is driven by two fundamentally distinct motivations: defensive extremism, which seeks to protect an in-group from perceived threats, and offensive extremism, which aims to establish group dominance and expand ideological influence.
Key Distinction/Mechanism: Defensive extremism is substantially more widespread and frequently viewed as morally acceptable by the public due to its protective framing. In contrast, offensive extremism focuses on conquest and is distinctly linked to macro-level societal dysfunction, such as political terror, internal conflict, and lower human development indices.
Origin/History: This dual-motivation framework was detailed in an April 2026 study published in PNAS. Conducted by an international team of over 100 researchers led by Jonas R. Kunst (University of Oslo) and Milan Obaidi (University of Copenhagen), the research analyzed survey data from 18,128 participants across 58 countries.
Major Frameworks/Components:
- Defensive Extremism Traits: Correlates with high levels of narcissism and manipulativeness, where calculating individuals may strategically exploit the perceived legitimacy of protective violence.
- Offensive Extremism Traits: Associated with a strong desire for group dominance, high religious fundamentalism, and unexpectedly, identification with liberal political groups exhibiting a willingness to disrupt the status quo.
- Shared Psychological Factors: Psychopathy positively correlates with both defensive and offensive violent intentions.
- Macro-Societal Impact: Offensive violent intentions correspond directly with lower indices of democracy and higher scores on the Global Terrorism Index, whereas defensive intentions do not show the same macro-level correlations.
Branch of Science: Behavioral Psychology, Political Science, and Sociology.
Future Application: This framework provides a blueprint for tailored counter-terrorism and de-radicalization interventions. By shifting away from uniform, "one-size-fits-all" strategies, policymakers and intervention specialists can design programs that address the specific psychological mechanisms driving an individual toward violence.
Why It Matters: Recognizing that violent extremism arises from differing psychological systems and motives is critical for global security. It ensures that preventative measures and societal interventions are accurately aligned with the root causes of radicalization, enabling a more effective response to intergroup violence on both micro and macro levels.
People’s tendency to support violence against other groups is not driven by a single mindset: two fundamental motivations and different personality traits are key determinants of violence. This is revealed by a new scientific study covering 58 countries.
Violent extremism is driven by two fundamentally different motivations: Defensive extremism aims to protect a group from perceived threats, whilst offensive extremism seeks to establish group dominance and expand influence.
Violence to protect – or to dominate
Led by Jonas R. Kunst (University of Oslo) and Milan Obaidi (University of Copenhagen), an international team of more than 100 researchers has analyzed survey data from 18,128 participants worldwide.
‘Our findings indicate that defensive extremist intentions are more widespread and enjoy greater support than offensive intentions. This holds true in 56 of the 58 countries studied,’ says Milan Obaidi, adding:
‘This suggests a widespread tendency to find protective violence more morally acceptable than violence aimed at conquest.’
Milan Obaidi finds it significant that violent extremism stems from two very different motivations – the need to protect one’s group or the pursuit of dominance.
‘It is important to recognize this difference because the motivations stem from different psychological systems and have different consequences for individuals and society,’ he says.
Appeals to different types
The study also shows that the two forms of extremism appeal to different types of human beings. People with high levels of narcissism and a strong tendency to manipulate others show particularly strong inclinations towards defensive extremism. The researchers believe that calculating individuals can strategically exploit the perceived legitimacy of violence presented as protective.
Conversely, individuals with a strong desire for group dominance and high levels of religious fundamentalism are more strongly associated with offensive extremism. Psychopathy is positively related to both types of violent intentions.
‘Furthermore, we see that identification with liberal political groups is, unexpectedly, associated with higher offensive but lower defensive intentions. This may reflect a willingness to disrupt the status quo,’ suggests Milan Obaidi.
Need for tailored interventions
Another key finding for the researchers is that offensive extremist intentions are linked to societal dysfunction at the macro level, including higher rates of political terror, internal conflicts, and the impact of terrorism.
‘Countries with higher scores on the Global Terrorism Index and lower scores on indices of democracy and human development exhibit higher levels of offensive violent intentions,’ explains Milan Obaidi.
Defensive intentions, despite broader support, do not show the same significant correlations with societal violence at the macro level.
The study’s findings could have major implications for programs designed to counter violent extremism.
‘As offensive and defensive intentions operate through different psychological mechanisms, policymakers and intervention specialists must move away from uniform strategies,’ suggests Milan Obaidi, elaborating:
‘Tailored interventions are needed to effectively address the specific underlying motives that drive individuals towards either protective or dominance-seeking violence.
Funding: The study, 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: University of Copenhagen
Reference Number: psy041026_01