Psychology of Politics: Extremism

It should be noted that the term "political extremism" is relative. The designation of attitudes as extreme depends on the reference point constituted by the political views prevailing in a given country. For example, in America, at one time, protests against the Vietnam War were seen as manifestations of extreme leftist views, while when they became widespread, they were referred to as a moderately liberal stance, which in America signifies a center-left orientation. The relativity of the concept of "political extremism" can be best observed during ongoing systemic changes. In countries with developed democracies, communist parties are categorized as political extremism, while in, for example, the former Eastern Bloc countries, communism was the only acceptable ideology in official socio-political life, and political radicalism was attributed to the opposition working for democracy.

In the traditional understanding, right-wing extremism in democratic countries is characterized by ultranationalism, ethnocentrism, anti-parliamentarism, anti-pluralism, anti-egalitarianism, and viewing the state in authoritarian terms, i.e., "law and order," idealization of national traditions and a past where all state institutions functioned in harmony, and the nation was united, strong, "racially pure," and dominant over others, with economic demands for tax cuts and a reduction in state intervention. Leftist extremism, on the other hand, primarily advocates for egalitarianism, a change in social structure aimed at reducing income inequalities, an extensive social program, and state intervention in the economic sphere, up to and including the abolition of private property or the removal of state power, viewed as immoral due to its use of coercion against the individual.


It is important to note that political currents encompassing both right-wing and left-wing extremist parties are internally very diverse. Within the extreme right operate (or operated) movements arising from the interwar fascist tradition (e.g., the Polish National Party) and parties aimed at actively opposing communism (e.g., the Republican League) or people of different ethnic backgrounds, e.g., Jews, Black people, Ukrainians. The extreme right also includes organizations that emerged from religious fundamentalism (e.g., the National Party "Szczerbiec"). Meanwhile, the extremist left is considered to include ecological, feminist, pacifist, anarchist, and communist parties (e.g., the Polish Communist Union "Proletariat," the Anarchist Federation, the Youth Revolutionary Initiative). However, regardless of the differences arising from political orientations, the extremity of political attitudes is expressed in certain common traits, including: militancy and destruction aimed at dismantling democratic institutions in the state, a fundamentalist conviction dividing the world into "good" and "evil," according to which one`s own ideology is treated as the only legitimate one fitting into the realm of the "good" world and providing simple recipes for dealing with complex problems.

Research on the psychological predispositions of individuals to support or engage in extremist actions and the factors leading to the formation of such predispositions has not yet been undertaken in Poland, or at least the results of such analyses have not been published. The main reason is the hermetic nature of parties considered extremist, the distrust of their members towards outsiders, and the illegal activities of some extremist organizations (e.g., terrorist groups).

Most psychological analyses thus focus on so-called latent extremists (hidden), also known as potential extremists. These individuals do not belong to political parties, often cannot even identify their political orientation or do so incorrectly, yet they exhibit a psychological readiness to adopt extremist political attitudes. Under certain conditions, their political extremism may be activated, leading to open advocacy for the programs and activities of extremist movements, and even to the undertaking of such activity, e.g., joining a relevant party. At that point, we are dealing with declared extremism; it is assessed based on the subjects` self-reported political identification. Latent extremism, on the other hand, is diagnosed based on special scales measuring the subjects` attitudes toward various social, economic, and political issues.

The conclusions from studies involving members of certain extremist organizations or potential extremists led to the identification of psychological factors described in terms of predispositions to engage in extremist political activity. These factors include:

• personality traits and the conditions in which they develop;
• intellectual characteristics and moral development;
• pathological traits;
• social conditions that incline a person to adopt extremist views or engage in extremist actions.

Research on the personality of political extremists was already conducted in the 1930s by researchers from the so-called Frankfurt School, focusing on declared and potential fascists. The ideas proposed found further development in Erich Fromm`s theory of authoritarian character and the theory of authoritarian personality formulated by a group of American scholars. Both theories fall within the psychodynamic convention, which distinguishes two basic assumptions regarding human behavior: the first assumes the unconscious nature of the mechanisms regulating all human behavior; the second concerns the significant impact of early childhood experiences on the formation of a specific drive structure. Desires or needs, which, although unacknowledged, determine the choices and behaviors of individuals in various life spheres, including politics.

According to Fromm, the authoritarian character is based on two conflicting drives that remain in a symbiotic relationship. One of these tendencies is expressed in the masochistic experience of feelings of inferiority, diminishing one`s self-worth, the desire to merge with individuals, institutions, or ideas perceived in terms of strength, power, and authority. This authority is typically idealized, and identification with it elevates one`s self-worth. The second tendency is sadism, expressed in a strong need to dominate others, to sow destruction, and to adopt discriminatory attitudes towards those different from oneself. Fromm posits that an authoritarian character based on strongly developed sadomasochistic drives accounts for the psychological readiness of individuals to adopt Nazi ideology.

Clinical studies conducted in the 1950s by Adorno and colleagues suggest that the authoritarian character is formed in a family where a particular emotional climate prevails, arising from the pronounced hierarchical structure of that family and the harsh educational methods employed by the parents. According to the authors of the study, an authoritarian personality is defined by a syndrome of personality traits, including: perceiving social relationships in hierarchical terms, a tendency toward irrational thinking expressed, for example, in the use of stereotypes and belief in destiny, and affective functioning, that is, hostility manifested in tendencies to condemn, reject, and harshly punish individuals violating accepted norms and values.

For political psychology, two theories have been developed within the cognitive convention: the hard and soft mind theory and the dogmatism theory. According to Eysenck—the author of the first theory—the type of mind primarily depends on biological factors. A hard mind comprises a syndrome of the following traits: concreteness, practicality, egotism, lack of empathy, and instrumental treatment of people. A soft mind is expressed in a concentration on theoretical, aesthetic, ethical issues, highly developed empathy, and altruism. Conducted studies have shown that political extremists are mostly characterized by a hard mind, while politically uninvolved individuals generally exhibit a soft mind. The syndrome of traits of the mind described in terms of hardness/softness is related to the way individuals emotionally react in social interactions. People with a hard mind show a higher degree of hostility and aggressiveness, but in the studies conducted, the difference between fascists and communists lay solely in the manner of expressing hostile feelings; fascists did so openly, while communists revealed negative emotions more subtly, indirectly.


The second classic theory explaining people`s readiness to adopt specific political ideologies is the theory of dogmatism by Rokeach. The concept of dogmatism refers to the human personality understood as a system of beliefs and is manifested in cognitive closure or openness. In the first case, we speak of high, while in the second, of low degrees of dogmatism. Generally speaking, the stronger the dogmatism, the more globally reality is perceived, especially as little differentiated views are often not accepted by the individual (e.g., for a Catholic, other religions appear as similar). Studies have found that both right-wing and left-wing radicals exhibit a higher degree of dogmatism than non-extremists, with right-wing extremists being more dogmatic than left-wing extremists.

The propensity to adopt extremist political behaviors is also influenced by a person`s value system subsystems, particularly their attitudes towards the concepts of freedom and equality, as well as situations threatening important values. In studies on the inclination to engage in terrorist actions, it has been found that the personality trait known as the search for stress may be a predictor. The first of two types of stress-seeking individuals is the narcissistic type, who seeks self-confirmation in the face of danger; this type is most common among terrorist leaders. The second, referred to as the collective stress seeker, experiences emotional gratifications in the form of a sense of connection with group members and admiration from them in group action—shared experiences of danger.

Analysis of intellectual properties and the level of moral development of members of extremist groups and parties does not lead to unequivocal conclusions. Results of some studies suggest that right-wing extremists exhibit lower intelligence and moral levels than left-wing extremists. This would mean that lower intelligence and greater dependence on authority in moral reasoning may promote individuals` involvement in right-wing extremist activities. Conversely, the more intelligent and autonomously thinking a person is in moral matters, the greater the probability they will adopt a leftist-oriented extremist stance. Meanwhile, the results of other studies suggest that the relationship between the level of intellectual ability and the propensity to adopt one of the extreme political orientations is modified by the position an individual occupies within a political group. Leaders of terrorist groups, regardless of the type of political views held, were characterized by significantly higher intelligence than members of extremist organizations.

Potential extremists and members of extremist political parties have also been diagnosed in clinical terms, attempting to answer the question of whether there is a type of disorder that predisposes an individual to express extremist political attitudes. Rokeach, the author of the theory of dogmatism, found that a high degree of dogmatism coexists with anxiety, low self-esteem, and paranoid tendencies.

Many strongly dogmatic individuals exhibited neurosis symptoms in childhood: thumb-sucking, nail-biting, sleep disturbances, and uncontrollable outbursts of anger. Meanwhile, the results of Rajnarain`s studies on the tendencies toward neurosis among members of Hindu communist parties revealed a significantly higher neuroticism compared to members of socialist and fascist parties. This means that communists are less emotionally balanced, excessively excitable, irritable, moody, and less resilient to stress, and in difficult situations, they are prone to breakdowns. Neurotic behaviors are also observed among terrorists. These may be accompanied by antisocial behaviors that induce aggression, personality disorders, neurotic and psychotic borderline disorders, and certain organic dysfunctions of the central nervous system. It should be noted that research has shown a somewhat different clinical profile among leaders of terrorist groups compared to members of these groups. Leaders exhibit significantly more pronounced paranoid personality traits, are fanatical about the ideas for which they fight, and have high self-esteem and self-confidence. In contrast, members of these groups often experience depressive states associated with low self-esteem, a tendency to abuse alcohol and drugs, and a strong desire for group belonging and acceptance. However, the cited clinical data is rather selective and random; there is a popular view that the percentage of disorders among extremists should be relatively small compared to the percentage of disorders in the general population, due to the planned and thoughtful nature of violence and, for example, the demanding, conspiratorial activities of terrorist groups.


The topic of the social sources of extremist attitudes encompasses macro-social and micro-social analyses, as well as the significance of demographic factors. The conclusions are quite unequivocal: the state’s economic policy, which contributes to the impoverishment of certain groups of people, as well as limits the possibility of individual self-realization, creates conditions conducive to the activation of political extremism. Results of micro-social analysis, that is, the family as a primary group and terrorist groups, confirmed the influence of emotional distance, prohibitions, and mandates during upbringing on later interest in terrorist groups, which to some extent compensate for the lack of feelings of closeness, bonds, and belonging.

Results of analyses encompassing demographic characteristics (i.e., an individual`s position in social structure) are not very clear. Some studies suggest a correlation between low educational attainment and technical education with an interest in extremist political ideologies (especially fascist ones). Others, conversely, assert that radical political activity is primarily undertaken by well-educated individuals.

Finally, it is worth noting that the results of studies upon which various personality theories are built are not always comparable. The extremists studied did not constitute a representative sample of the entire population of political radicals or its chosen faction, and the specificity of the historical and social context in which the studied extremists lived and conducted their activities could have determined their psychological profile.

report for classes in Political Psychology at MZSD UW based on: "Fundamentals of Political Psychology" edited by K. Skarżyńska
source: Lectures of the Master`s Part-time Journalism Program at the University of Warsaw.