A recent study published in Political Behavior sheds light on what drives support for politically motivated violence in the United States. Researchers found that while overall public support for such violence is very low, those who do support it often share certain psychological tendencies. These include a propensity to dehumanize political opponents and a personal “need for chaos,” or a desire to disrupt the social order to gain status. The findings suggest that these drivers, rather than purely political ideologies, play a significant role in fostering support for violence.
Concerns over partisan violence in the United States have risen in recent years, fueled by events such as the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack and other violent incidents targeting political figures. Public worry mirrors this trend, with a majority of Americans expressing fear about politically motivated violence. Despite these concerns, little is known about the factors that contribute to such violence.
“I’m a social psychologist trying to understand intergroup violence. I believe that, to effectively address such violence, we need to understand the psychology that drives it,” said study author Alexander P. Landry, a PhD candidate at Stanford University’s Graduate School of Business.
“I’m mainly interested in war and genocide, but I assume some of the basic psychological motives that lead people to support violence in those contexts also lead political partisans to support violence in the contemporary United States. Indeed, I’ve found dehumanization to be one common psychological driver of support for violence in the U.S. political context, Russians’ and Ukrainians’ support for war crimes against one another in their ongoing war, Israelis’ and Palestinians’ support for genocide against each other, and Hindus’ and Muslims’ support for religious violence in India.”
The researchers analyzed data from three separate surveys, encompassing 2,003 participants. These surveys measured support for both abstract concepts of partisan violence and more specific instances. Abstract measures included statements like, “How much do you feel it is justified for [your political party] to use violence if the other party wins more elections?” Specific measures were grounded in scenarios, such as a vignette about a man shooting a political opponent at a meeting, with follow-up questions assessing whether the act was justifiable.
Participants were also assessed on a range of psychological and social traits to identify potential predictors of support for violence. Key variables included the “need for chaos,” a measure of a person’s desire to create societal disruption for personal satisfaction or status, and dehumanization, where individuals perceive political opponents as less human or evolved.
Other variables included trait aggression (e.g., a person’s self-reported likelihood of becoming physically aggressive), anti-establishment orientation (antagonism toward the established political order), system justification (beliefs in the fairness and legitimacy of the current social order), and social dominance orientation (support for hierarchical group structures). The researchers also examined partisan animosity, or the emotional dislike of opposing partisans, using feeling thermometer ratings.
Support for partisan violence was low overall, with average scores on abstract measures, such as general approval of violence to achieve political goals, ranging between 7.14% and 11.06% across the three studies. Support for specific violent acts, such as a hypothetical shooting motivated by political conflict, was even lower, averaging between 3.83% and 10.01%.
Despite the low overall levels of support, a minority of participants showed significant backing for violence, and their attitudes were strongly associated with specific psychological traits and intergroup evaluations. Two factors emerged as the most consistent and robust predictors of support for partisan violence: the need for chaos and dehumanization.
“Support for partisan violence in the United States is very low,” Landry told PsyPost. “But, among those who do support such violence, dehumanization of opposing partisans is a key driver of their support. Another driver in the U.S. political context is the so-called ‘need for chaos,’ or a personal desire to create disruption to gain social status. Those high in a need for chaos welcome disruption with little concern for what comes next, other than hoping to increase or protect their status.”
Social ideologies also played a role in shaping these attitudes. System justification and social dominance orientation were both positively associated with support for partisan violence. These findings suggest that individuals who see their political opponents as threats to the social status quo are more likely to endorse violence as a means of defending their preferred system.
Contrary to common assumptions, extreme political ideology—whether left or right—was not a reliable predictor of support for partisan violence. Additionally, partisan animosity, defined as emotional dislike of the opposing political party, was often unrelated to or even negatively associated with support for violence. This challenges the narrative that heightened political polarization is the primary driver of violent attitudes and highlights the importance of psychological and social factors over simple ideological divides.
While aggression was linked to abstract support for violence, it did not consistently predict support for specific violent acts, suggesting a distinction between general aggression and the willingness to condone concrete instances of violence. Similarly, anti-establishment orientation showed weak or nonsignificant relationships with both abstract and specific measures of partisan violence.
“We thought anti-establishment orientation—’a deep-seated antagonism toward the established political order’ (Uscinski et al., 2021, p. 879)—would also be robustly correlated with support for partisan violence, but it was not,” Landry said. “Instead, our result suggest that support for partisan violence is largely grounded in personality traits (need for chaos) and outgroup perceptions (dehumanization) that are not unique to the political domain. Support for partisan violence appears to resemble other types of intergroup violence.”
But as with all research, there are some caveats to consider. One limitation is the reliance on self-reported data, which may be influenced by social desirability bias. Given the sensitive nature of questions about political violence, participants might underreport their true support for violent actions.
The researchers also noted the need to investigate the role of elite messaging and media in mobilizing support for violence. Political leaders and media outlets often use divisive rhetoric, which may amplify tendencies like the need for chaos or dehumanization among certain subgroups. Exploring how specific types of messaging interact with psychological predispositions could help identify strategies to reduce the risk of violence.
The findings open the door to exploring the overlap between partisan violence and other forms of intergroup violence. With this line of research, Landry hopes to “illuminate the psychology driving violence so we can more effectively address it.”
The study, “Need for Chaos and Dehumanization are Robustly Associated with Support for Partisan Violence, While Political Measures are Not,” was authored by Alexander P. Landry, James N. Druckman, and Robb Willer.
