A cross‑European survey led by Tahir Abbas at Aston University in the United Kingdom finds that perceived social exclusion is linked to a higher likelihood of endorsing political violence, with the strength of that link shaped by how people experience political alienation. The study analysed 5,501 participants from the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Denmark and Norway and has been published in Psychology of Violence.
Perceived social exclusion refers to the sense that one’s group is unfairly treated, disrespected, or denied full participation in society. Researchers say this grievance can foster a sense of injustice that makes violence seem more justifiable as a means of addressing grievances.
Political alienation, the study notes, encompasses distrust of democratic institutions (institutional alienation) and a sense of powerlessness or hopelessness about one’s ability to influence outcomes (efficacy alienation). While these experiences often co‑occur, the researchers argue they can relate to violence endorsement in different ways.
The international, Horizon 2020‑funded project gathered data online between 2021 and 2023 via a professional survey panel provider. The country samples were designed to reflect national demographics in age, gender, education and religion, though more educated respondents were somewhat overrepresented as is common in online panels.
Exclusion was measured with six items—such as feeling humiliated because of one’s background and perceiving media bias against people like oneself—while institutional alienation was assessed with items on whether democracy works for people like oneself and confidence in local politicians. Efficacy alienation was captured with two items indicating that people like oneself have no power in society and that one has no future. Violence endorsement was assessed with a single statement: “Sometimes people need to use violence to achieve their goals.”
Overall, endorsement of violence was a minority position, with about 8.5% of participants strongly agreeing with the statement. The study found that those who felt more excluded were more likely to endorse violence, and this link was visible across all four countries. Importantly, political alienation did not have an independent association with violence endorsement once exclusion was accounted for, and it did not mediate the exclusion–violence relationship.
Instead, alienation moderated the link between exclusion and violence endorsement in opposite directions. Among participants who reported high efficacy alienation, the relationship between exclusion and endorsing violence was much stronger. By contrast, among those with high institutional alienation, the link was weaker, albeit still present.
The researchers identified two broad groups within the samples. A majority of 59% reported relatively low levels of exclusion and alienation, and only 0.5% of this group strongly endorsed violence. The remaining 41%, who reported higher exclusion and alienation, contained about 20% who strongly endorsed violence, while 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.
The author suggests that policies aimed at strengthening individuals’ sense of influence over outcomes could potentially weaken the link between grievance and violence endorsement more effectively than efforts to boost trust in institutions, though this remains to be tested directly. He also cautions that security measures that stigmatise entire communities could exacerbate the sense of exclusion at the heart of the link.
While the study adds to the scientific understanding of the psychological correlates of political violence, its design does not establish causality. Violence endorsement was measured via a single attitudinal question, and the authors note that many who hold such views never act on them. All measures were self‑reported, leaving room for under‑reporting in some respondents, and the authors acknowledge that measures were partly exploratory, needing confirmation in other data. The cross‑country pattern also varied, suggesting caution in extrapolating beyond 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.
