![[Adobe Stock]](https://sp-ao.shortpixel.ai/client/to_webp,q_glossy,ret_img,w_750,h_375/https://www.psypost.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/a-violent-protester-lighting-a-molotov-cocktail-750x375.jpg)
A survey of more than 5,000 adults in four European countries found that people who felt their group was excluded from society were more likely to endorse political violence. Political alienation was not linked to violence endorsement on its own, but depending on its form, it either strengthened or weakened the connection between feeling excluded and endorsing violence. The paper was published in Psychology of Violence.
Political violence remains a serious challenge for democratic societies. It raises important questions about why some people come to support the use of force to achieve political goals while others do not. One factor that may contribute to such attitudes is perceived social exclusion, or the feeling that one’s group is unfairly treated, disrespected, or denied opportunities to participate fully in society.
People who feel excluded in this way may develop a strong sense of injustice and become more willing to justify violence as a way of addressing their grievances. Another potentially important factor is political alienation, which refers to feelings of estrangement from the political system and its institutions. Political alienation can take different forms, including distrust of democratic institutions (called institutional alienation) and a sense of powerlessness and hopelessness about one’s ability to influence outcomes (efficacy alienation).
Although these alienation experiences tend to occur together, researchers suggest that they may have different relationships with support for political violence. For example, people who feel powerless and hopeless about their ability to influence political outcomes may be particularly likely to justify violence when they also feel socially excluded. In contrast, those who have lost trust in political institutions may simply withdraw from political life rather than support violent action.
Tahir Abbas of Aston University in the United Kingdom examined the connections between perceived social exclusion, political alienation, and the endorsement of violence. Abbas expected that people who felt more excluded would be more likely to endorse violence, and that alienation would not simply pass along or add to this effect but would instead shape how strongly exclusion and violence endorsement were linked. Specifically, efficacy alienation was expected to strengthen this link, while institutional alienation was expected to weaken it.
The study analyzed data from a survey funded by the European Commission’s Horizon 2020 program and conducted online between 2021 and 2023 through a professional survey panel provider. The 5,501 participants came from the United Kingdom (2,535), the Netherlands (1,963), Denmark (635), and Norway (368). The samples were designed to reflect each country’s population in terms of age, gender, education, and religion, although more educated people were somewhat overrepresented, as is common in online panels.
The survey measured perceived group-based exclusion with six items, such as feeling humiliated because of one’s background, feeling that one’s religion is treated badly, and perceiving media bias against people like oneself. Institutional alienation was assessed with items such as whether democracy works for people like oneself and confidence in local politicians, while efficacy alienation was assessed with two items: that people like oneself have no power in society, and that one has no future. Violence endorsement was measured with a single statement: “Sometimes people need to use violence to achieve their goals.”
Support for violence was a minority position, with about 8.5% of participants strongly agreeing with the statement. Participants who felt more excluded were more likely to endorse violence, and this link appeared in all four countries. Political alienation was not associated with violence endorsement once exclusion was taken into account, and it did not explain the link between exclusion and violence endorsement.
Instead, as predicted, alienation shaped the strength of that link, and its two forms worked in opposite directions. Among participants high in efficacy alienation, feeling excluded was much more strongly associated with endorsing violence. Among participants high in institutional alienation, the link between exclusion and violence endorsement was weaker, though still present.
The analyses also identified two broad groups of participants that appeared in every country. A majority (59%) reported relatively low exclusion and alienation, and only 0.5% of them strongly endorsed violence. Among the remaining 41%, who reported higher exclusion and alienation, about 20% strongly endorsed violence, although roughly four in five did not.
“This study finds that perceived exclusion is consistently associated with support for political violence, that political alienation has no independent association, and that alienation instead conditions the grievance–endorsement relationship in opposing directions across its institutional and efficacy facets. Political alienation is best understood as a conditional catalyst, not a cause or a brake,” Abbas concluded.
“What they [the findings] suggest, tentatively but consistently, is that the texture of political estrangement—whether people withdraw from institutions or feel personally powerless before them—matters more for support for violence than its mere presence,” Abbas added.
Abbas suggests that efforts to strengthen people’s sense that they can influence outcomes that matter to them may do more to weaken the link between grievance and support for violence than campaigns aimed only at boosting trust in institutions, though this would need to be tested directly. The author also cautions that security measures that make whole communities feel stigmatized could deepen the sense of exclusion that underlies this link.
The study contributes to the scientific understanding of psychological correlates of political violence. However, it should be noted that the design of this study does not allow any causal inferences to be derived from the results. Violence endorsement was also measured with a single question about attitudes, not behavior, and most people who hold such views never act on them.
All measures were self-reported, so some participants may have been reluctant to admit supporting violence. The way the measures were constructed was partly exploratory and needs to be confirmed in other data. The overall moderating role of alienation also varied across countries, appearing most clearly in the Netherlands, and the findings may not apply outside established democracies.
The paper, “From Grievance to Endorsement: Political Alienation as a Conditional Catalyst, Not a Cause, of Support for Political Violence,” was authored by Tahir Abbas.