Individual-Level Perspectives on Mobilisation, Protest and Radicalisation: A Rapid Evidence Assessment

Executive Summary

Overview

This report synthesises and critically analyses the existing research that has considered whether and how political contention and protest relate to radicalisation and terrorism. It focuses on individual-level perspectives that examine what shapes the potential for violence and radicalisation, and what constrains it in social movement mobilisations and protest, and how state responses influence these processes.

Aims

The review seeks to address the following primary research questions:

• What individual-level mechanisms are linked to violence, radicalisation, and terrorism in social movements?
• What individual-level factors constrain the potential for violence, radicalisation, and terrorism in social movements?
• How do group identities and intergroup relations influence the potential for violence, radicalisation, and terrorism in social movements?
• What contextual factors influence the individual towards violence, radicalisation, and terrorism within social movements? 

Methodology

This research uses a rapid evidence assessment (REA) approach, synthesising knowledge on specific topics in line with the research questions from published journal articles, book chapters, reports, and dissertations, including both academic and “grey” literature (e.g., government and think tank reports). The REA adopted a streamlined methodology using keyword searches of major social science databases, after which identified documents were screened for inclusion based on pre-determined eligibility criteria.

Key findings

The REA identified several potential individual-level drivers for violent and extremist escalations within social movements including emotional, cognitive, psychological, group, and institutional factors. 

Key findings identified in this review are summarised in separate tables for each major section (see Full Report), loosely based on the EMMIE framework for evidence relating to crime prevention interventions (Johnson et al., 2015). The EMMIE framework summarises the overall effect, direction, and strength of the evidence; the mechanisms or mediators it activates; relevant moderators or contexts, including unintended effects; implementation considerations; and economic costs/benefits (Johnson et al., 2015). Since the findings of this review are not solely concerned with interventions, the latter two considerations are not summarised here.¹

These tables therefore highlight the factors identified in the review process, their overall effects on violence and/or extremism, any identified mechanisms and/or moderators, and the strength of the evidence from the literature base. These represent general trends in the research rather than firm indicators of individual-level processes and their impact on protests.

Individual processes

Research on individual processes examines the literature that informs how and why people engage in protest which are, or become violent. It addresses emotional, cognitive, and psychological processes. While individual-level processes provide valuable insights into the psychological drivers of protests and radicalisation, societal, structural, and contextual factors can play a critical role in shaping collective action. These are covered in two accompanying reports that foreground the processes at work in social movements and transnational influences on protest and political violence.

Emotional processes

Research on emotional processes shows how different emotional appraisals shape collective action. It also shows how emotional reactivity and emotional regulation play a role in driving or inhibiting extreme political action.

Table 1 summarises the key factors identified in relation to emotional appraisals and their effect on violence. Overall, anger appears to be a strong motivator for collective action but its link to violence yields mixed results and seems to be context dependent. Some studies found that it motivates violence, while other studies argue that anger fosters constructive engagement. Disgust and contempt are more consistently associated with an increase in violence, through exclusionary mechanisms and psychological distancing, although this is based on research on specific contexts and does not offer more comparative insights into the role of contempt across settings. In contrast, fear and sadness tend to decrease violence, although fear can sometimes lead to violent action when fuelled by solidarity and humanitarian concerns. Emotional reactivity increases, while emotional regulation decreases support for violent actions. 

Cognitive processes

Research shows that cognitive processes such as information gathering, exposure to misinformation, cognitive rigidity, decision-making styles, and power distance, can influence support for political violence.

Table 2 summarises the key factors identified in relation to cognitive processes and their effect on violence. Overall, the research indicates that individuals with low political knowledge, and who are exposed to misinformation and conspiracy theories are more likely to support violent actions. Similarly, cognitive rigidity is associated with greater endorsement of violent actions; so is higher acceptance of power distance as these individuals tend to avoid lawful protests, potentially due to the suppression of open dissent. Conversely, systematic decision-making processes, characterised by engagement with a problem, the evaluation of risks, and the analysis of costs and benefits can act as a protective factor, decreasing the propensity for violence. 

Psychological processes

Psychological processes, covering emotional and cognitive elements, which are often closely linked, can contribute to support for violent action.

Table 3 summarises the key psychological factors and their effect on violence. Overall, research shows that certain personality traits such as those associated with the Dark Tetrad (Machiavellianism, narcissism, psychopathy, and sadism) are linked to increased support for violent action. Low trust in institutions and negative attitudes towards authority are also related to increased support for violent action. Depression can increase the support for violent action because of the cognitive distortions associated with depression. Additionally, significance loss triggered by feelings of anomia, personal deprivation, economic hardship and social exclusion is associated with increased support for violence.

Intergroup relations and identities

Research on intergroup relations and their impact on individuals highlights how they shape the reasons behind individuals’ engagement in protests which are or become violent. It addresses two broad categories of intergroup relations. The first is collective identities, an overarching term encompassing group identification, identity fusion, and related concepts. The second category is state responses and their impact on identities.

Collective identities

Collective identities have the potential to drive violent and nonviolent collective actions. Group dynamics not only underpin political mobilisation but also shape the nature of protest.

Table 4 summarises the key factors identified in relation to collective identities and their effect on violence. Overall, group identification increases participation in both non-violent and violent collective action. Fringe groups are associated with increased support for violent actions, including violent protest; a greater willingness to wish harm upon members of opposing political parties; and interpersonal violence against political adversaries. Identity fusion, shared grievances, shared norms, and group emotions increase the potential for violence, whereas politicised collective identity, discrimination, and perceived strength of the group have mixed effects on violence. 

Recommendations

The findings of this report highlight a range of considerations relating to individual-level processes, such as emotions and identity, and their relationship to violence. Individual-level processes do not exist in a vacuum however, they are influenced by their cultural and political contexts, including state responses. The findings from the report highlight the importance of thoughtful policy and practice even in charged environments.

Based on this review, recommendations for policy and practice include: 

1. Avoid triggering or intensifying emotional reactions through the use of violence or dismissive rhetoric. 
2. Emotion-sensitive communication perspectives can mitigate some of the risk of violence.
3. Avoid policing practices which segregate or isolate groups.
4. Avoid excessive or indiscriminate state repression and police violence.
5. Prioritise procedural justice in protest contexts.
6. Acknowledge protesters’ grievances and perspectives.
7. Maximise opportunities for nonviolent and meaningful political participation.
8. Enhance institutional responsiveness and transparency to strengthen trust and reduce the potential for violent forms of protests.

Read the Full Report

[1] The scope of this Rapid Evidence Assessment does not allow for a formal assessment of the strength of evidence in line with the full EMMIE framework. Here, strength of evidence is based on a qualitative assessment of the scope of evidence linked to a particular factor, and the quality of the methodology used in the research which speaks to each theme.