Political violence remains a serious challenge for democratic societies, prompting questions about why some individuals support the use of force for political goals while others do not. A recent study published in *Psychology of Violence* offers fresh insight into this issue, examining how perceived social exclusion and two distinct types of political alienation interact.
The Role of Social Exclusion and Alienation
Led by Tahir Abbas of Aston University in the United Kingdom, the study analyzed data from a survey of 5,501 adults conducted online between 2021 and 2023. Participants came from the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Norway. The samples were designed to reflect each country’s population in terms of age, gender, education, and religion.
The research looked at perceived group-based exclusion—such as feeling humiliated due to one's background, experiencing media bias, or feeling that one's religion is treated poorly—alongside two forms of political alienation. Institutional alienation involves a lack of trust in democratic institutions and local politicians, while efficacy alienation centers on feelings of powerlessness and hopelessness regarding one's ability to influence societal outcomes.
Opposing Effects on Support for Violence
Overall, support for violence was a minority position, with about 8.5% of participants strongly agreeing with the statement that people sometimes need to use violence to achieve their goals. The study found that people who felt their group was excluded from society were more consistently more likely to endorse political violence across all four countries.
However, political alienation on its own was not linked to violence endorsement once exclusion was taken into account. Instead, the two forms of alienation acted in opposite directions to moderate the link between exclusion and violence. Among participants experiencing high efficacy alienation—feeling powerless and lacking a future—the connection between social exclusion and the endorsement of violence was much stronger. In contrast, among those experiencing high institutional alienation—distrusting democratic systems—the link between exclusion and violence endorsement was weaker.
Understanding the Implications
Abbas concluded that political alienation functions as a conditional catalyst rather than a direct cause or brake on violence endorsement. The study highlights that the specific texture of political estrangement matters more for understanding these attitudes than its mere presence.
The author notes several limitations to the research. The study's design prevents causal inferences, and violence endorsement was measured through a single attitudinal question rather than observed behavior. Furthermore, measures were self-reported, and the moderating role of alienation varied across countries, appearing most clearly in the Netherlands.