There are two main goals of our research. First, we examine if non-
clinical psychopathic traits are related to radical CA and support for
violent social change, even when accounting for other key variables
(identification, efficacy, injustice appraisal). Second, following Duncan
(2012), we examine if the relationship between disinhibition (related to
weak impulse control) and radical CA is moderated by group identifi-
cation. We investigate the willingness to act on behalf of three various
groups: the country (abstract entity without clearly defined norms, as it
is composed of various sub-groups with different values and normative
systems); right-wing groups related to the Independence March in Po-
land (an event organised by far-right organisations with a history of
clashes with the police and violence directed towards out-groups); and
left-wing groups related to the For Our Freedom and Yours demon-
stration (with a mostly anti-fascist agenda). To explore various types of
support for radical actions, we included three different measures: ra-
dical CA (which concentrate acting with others in a radical way),
willingness to fight and die (which measure behavioural tendency to act
aggressively to defend in-group and in-group members), and support
for violent social-change in the country. To examine, if the link between
disinhibition, boldness, meanness and group actions occurs only when
radical actions are considered, we included also measure of moderate
(i.e. peaceful) CA.
Method
2.1. Participants and procedure
Participants were recruited at various universities and colleges in
Northern Poland by Authors or research assistants. All questionnaires
were paper-pencil based. All participants were informed about the goal
of the research and voluntarily agreed to take part in the study.
Anonymity of the participants was ensured (we collected no personal
data). A total of 877 participants (458 women, 23 missing data;
Mage = 22.03, SD = 5.81) completed the questionnaire. Participants
were randomly assigned to one of three conditions. Respondents an-
swered the question about willingness to join collective actions on be-
half of (a) the country, (b) for the Independence March and its right-
wing participants, or (c) for the For Our Freedom and Yours march and
its left-wing participants.
2.2. Measures
Participants indicated their responses on a 7-point Likert scale
(1 = Strongly Disagree, 7 = Strongly Agree), unless stated otherwise.
Group related measures were always adapted to be relevant to the
group mention in each condition (country or left wing group or right
wing group).
2.2.1. Disinhibition, boldness, and meanness
Trait psychopathy was measured by the Polish version of the
Triarchical Measure of Psychopathy (Pilch & Górnik-Durose, 2016).
This scale is a valid psychometric tool for measuring psychopathic traits
in non-clinical and non-criminal subjects. Participants indicated their
responses on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = True, 4 = False) and three sub-
scales, all of which have been proven to be reliable: boldness, meanness
and disinhibition (α = 0.83, α = 0.86 and α = 0.81, respectively).
2.2.2. Group related measures
A 14-item group multicomponent group identification scale was
used (Leach et al., 2008) (α = 0.96) to measure identification with
people who live in Poland or share the participants' opinion on right-
wing or left-wing ideas (e.g., depending on the condition, participants
answer question like ‘I feel a bond with other Poles’ or ‘I feel a bond
with people engaging in the Independence March’). For group efficacy
(3 items, α = 0.92) and perceived injustice (2 items, r = 0.83) mea-
sures of these variables were based on the measures used previously
(van Zomeren et al., 2012).
2.2.3. Actions on behalf of the group
For moderate (4 items, α = 0.89) and radical (2 items, r = 0.75)
CA, we asked participants to describe their behavioural tendencies
(e.g., willingness to join peaceful demonstrations or occupy buildings).
We also used the 7-item scale by Swann, Gómez, Seyle, Morales, and
Huici (2009) to measure the willingness to fight and die for one's group
(e.g., ‘I would fight someone physically threatening another in-group
member’; α = 0.92). A 3-item scale was used to assess acceptance of
violent change in the social system (Besta et al., 2015) (e.g., ‘To es-
tablish better laws in Poland, one needs to use violence’; α = 0.89).
Results
3.1. Correlations and regression analyses
To test the first research question, a series of linear regression
analyses with the enter method were conducted. Disinhibition, boldness
and meanness; identification; group efficacy; and injustice appraisal
were entered to predict radical CA, willingness to fight and die and
support for violent social change.
Table 1 shows the results for three measures of radical group ac-
tions. Disinhibition was related to radical CA on behalf of the In-
dependence March but not the left-wing march, and it was a significant
predictor of willingness to fight and die for the in-group in both con-
texts (for the right-wing and left-wing groups). Meanness was a sig-
nificant predictor of support for violent social change in all three
samples. We compare the strength of correlations between disinhibition
and radical actions on behalf of Poland, right-wing groups and left-wing
groups. Disinhibition was linked to willingness to join radical CA on
behalf of right-wing groups (r = 0.23) more strongly than to act on
behalf of the country (r = 0.08) (z = 1.94, p = .03) or left-wing groups
(r = 0.08) (z = 1.64, p = .05). Disinhibition was also linked more
strongly to the willingness to fight and die for a right-wing group
(r = 0.24) than for the country (r = 0.07) (z = 2.16, p = .02), but not
for a left-wing group (r = 0.16; z = 0.86, p = .20).
3.2. Moderation analyses
We conducted a series of moderation analyses (Process macro,
model 1; 10,000 bootstraps). When asked about CA on behalf of the
country, there was no significant relation between disinhibition and
radical actions (and no moderations by identification). There was a
significant relation between disinhibition and willingness to fight and
die for the left-wing in-group but no moderation by identification. In
the context of right-wing groups, disinhibition relates to both radical
CA and willingness to fight and die. Identification with a groupmoderates these relations. Interaction between disinhibition x identi-
fication B = 0.28, p = .01 for radical CA (indirect effects: low identi-
fication B = 0.26 [−0.22;0.74], average identification B = 0.67
[0.34;1.00], high identification B = 1.08 [0.63;1.53]) and B = 0.30,
p < .001 for willingness to fight (indirect effects: low identification
B = 0.13 [−0.22;0.48], average identification B = 0.56 [0.32;0.81],
high identification B = 1.00 [0.68;1.33]). Among weak identifiers, the
relation between disinhibition and radical actions where nonsignificant
but became significant when strong identifiers were considered (Fig. 1).
Our research shows that disinhibition and meanness, considered as
dispositional individual differences, are related to various forms of
support for radical group actions. We also have preliminary support for
the role of a group's definitions and norms. That is, people with tem-
peramental predispositions could be more prone to support violent
actions on behalf of the groups that normalise violence. This fits well
with the present understanding of radicalisation. For example, if the
reason for radicalisation is a disproportionate commitment to ends that
is linked to the devaluation or suppression of alternative (i.e., norma-
tive, peaceful) considerations, then people who more easily devaluate
alternatives (i.e., because of a lack of consideration of others' well-
being) should be more prone to radicalisation. Similarly, people for
whom radical behaviours are not only a means to highly valued ends
but are also intrinsically reinforcing (i.e., these radical behaviours sa-
tisfy the need for thrill-seeking) should be more prone to radicalisation.
Here we see the important role of individual differences.
Meanness was repeatedly (in three independent samples) related to
acceptance of violent social change. This is aligned with clinical and
personality research as meanness is understood as empowerment
through cruelty and deficient empathy (Patrick et al., 2009). With such
disdain for close attachments with others and engagement in active
exploitativeness and confrontation, the positive attitudes towards vio-
lence could be strengthened by the lack of considerations about the
possible human cost of this violence and defiance of authority.
Interplay between group identification and disinhibition has been
noted as especially relevant for understanding willingness to engage in
radical actions on behalf of the right-wing group. Previous studies
pointed to the group norms and values as factors linked to the decision
to use radical means. Studies show that group radicalisation and po-
larisation are largely determined by important group norms, and these
norms are often responsible for uninhibited behaviour (if that is a part
of a prevailing group norm). In the context of CA, it is possible that
impulsive individuals with hostile tendencies will collaborate with
other people in a group, especially when group norms justify the violent
means chosen by them. In this sense, radical collective actions might be
a way to achieve personal benefits (e.g., allowing them to explicitly
express a lack of restraint or disregard for others, namely out-group
members). The interplay between group norms and individual differ-
ences should be explored in future research.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Tomasz Besta: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis,
Data curation, Writing - original draft, Project administration. Beata
Pastwa-Wojciechowska: Conceptualization, Methodology, Data cura-
tion, Writing - review & editing. Michał Jaśkiewicz:Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing - review & editing. Andrzej
Piotrowski: Conceptualization, Data curation, Writing - review &
editing. Marcin Szulc: Conceptualization, Data curation, Writing - re-
view & editing.
Appendix A. Details on participants, measures and procedure
One item attention check was included in the questionnaire to examine if participants follow the instruction: ‘This is an attention-checking
question. We are checking whether people filling out the survey do not answer at random. Please, mark the number 2 below’. We included in the
final analyses only people who do not failed the attention-checking question (877). Of those, some of the participants failed to answer items from
specific scales, thus number of participants in each analysis may vary. Table 1 includes descriptive statistics.
for the variables used in research (and number of participants that answered items from each measure).
1.3. Aim and research questions
There are two main goals of our research. First, we examine if non- clinical psychopathic traits are related to radical CA and support for violent social change, even when accounting for other key variables (identification, efficacy, injustice appraisal). Second, following Duncan (2012), we examine if the relationship between disinhibition (related to weak impulse control) and radical CA is moderated by group identifi- cation. We investigate the willingness to act on behalf of three various groups: the country (abstract entity without clearly defined norms, as it is composed of various sub-groups with different values and normative systems); right-wing groups related to the Independence March in Po- land (an event organised by far-right organisations with a history of clashes with the police and violence directed towards out-groups); and left-wing groups related to the For Our Freedom and Yours demon- stration (with a mostly anti-fascist agenda). To explore various types of support for radical actions, we included three different measures: ra- dical CA (which concentrate acting with others in a radical way), willingness to fight and die (which measure behavioural tendency to act aggressively to defend in-group and in-group members), and support for violent social-change in the country. To examine, if the link between disinhibition, boldness, meanness and group actions occurs only when radical actions are considered, we included also measure of moderate (i.e. peaceful) CA.
2.1. Participants and procedure
Participants were recruited at various universities and colleges in Northern Poland by Authors or research assistants. All questionnaires were paper-pencil based. All participants were informed about the goal of the research and voluntarily agreed to take part in the study. Anonymity of the participants was ensured (we collected no personal data). A total of 877 participants (458 women, 23 missing data; Mage = 22.03, SD = 5.81) completed the questionnaire. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions. Respondents an- swered the question about willingness to join collective actions on be- half of (a) the country, (b) for the Independence March and its right- wing participants, or (c) for the For Our Freedom and Yours march and its left-wing participants.
2.2. Measures
Participants indicated their responses on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 7 = Strongly Agree), unless stated otherwise. Group related measures were always adapted to be relevant to the group mention in each condition (country or left wing group or right wing group).
2.2.1. Disinhibition, boldness, and meanness
Trait psychopathy was measured by the Polish version of the Triarchical Measure of Psychopathy (Pilch & Górnik-Durose, 2016). This scale is a valid psychometric tool for measuring psychopathic traits in non-clinical and non-criminal subjects. Participants indicated their responses on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = True, 4 = False) and three sub- scales, all of which have been proven to be reliable: boldness, meanness and disinhibition (α = 0.83, α = 0.86 and α = 0.81, respectively).
2.2.2. Group related measures
A 14-item group multicomponent group identification scale was used (Leach et al., 2008) (α = 0.96) to measure identification with people who live in Poland or share the participants' opinion on right- wing or left-wing ideas (e.g., depending on the condition, participants answer question like ‘I feel a bond with other Poles’ or ‘I feel a bond with people engaging in the Independence March’). For group efficacy (3 items, α = 0.92) and perceived injustice (2 items, r = 0.83) mea- sures of these variables were based on the measures used previously (van Zomeren et al., 2012).
2.2.3. Actions on behalf of the group
For moderate (4 items, α = 0.89) and radical (2 items, r = 0.75) CA, we asked participants to describe their behavioural tendencies (e.g., willingness to join peaceful demonstrations or occupy buildings). We also used the 7-item scale by Swann, Gómez, Seyle, Morales, and Huici (2009) to measure the willingness to fight and die for one's group (e.g., ‘I would fight someone physically threatening another in-group member’; α = 0.92). A 3-item scale was used to assess acceptance of violent change in the social system (Besta et al., 2015) (e.g., ‘To es- tablish better laws in Poland, one needs to use violence’; α = 0.89).
3.1. Correlations and regression analyses
To test the first research question, a series of linear regression analyses with the enter method were conducted. Disinhibition, boldness and meanness; identification; group efficacy; and injustice appraisal were entered to predict radical CA, willingness to fight and die and support for violent social change. Table 1 shows the results for three measures of radical group ac- tions. Disinhibition was related to radical CA on behalf of the In- dependence March but not the left-wing march, and it was a significant predictor of willingness to fight and die for the in-group in both con- texts (for the right-wing and left-wing groups). Meanness was a sig- nificant predictor of support for violent social change in all three samples. We compare the strength of correlations between disinhibition and radical actions on behalf of Poland, right-wing groups and left-wing groups. Disinhibition was linked to willingness to join radical CA on behalf of right-wing groups (r = 0.23) more strongly than to act on behalf of the country (r = 0.08) (z = 1.94, p = .03) or left-wing groups (r = 0.08) (z = 1.64, p = .05). Disinhibition was also linked more strongly to the willingness to fight and die for a right-wing group (r = 0.24) than for the country (r = 0.07) (z = 2.16, p = .02), but not for a left-wing group (r = 0.16; z = 0.86, p = .20).
3.2. Moderation analyses
We conducted a series of moderation analyses (Process macro, model 1; 10,000 bootstraps). When asked about CA on behalf of the country, there was no significant relation between disinhibition and radical actions (and no moderations by identification). There was a significant relation between disinhibition and willingness to fight and die for the left-wing in-group but no moderation by identification. In the context of right-wing groups, disinhibition relates to both radical CA and willingness to fight and die. Identification with a groupmoderates these relations. Interaction between disinhibition x identi- fication B = 0.28, p = .01 for radical CA (indirect effects: low identi- fication B = 0.26 [−0.22;0.74], average identification B = 0.67 [0.34;1.00], high identification B = 1.08 [0.63;1.53]) and B = 0.30, p < .001 for willingness to fight (indirect effects: low identification B = 0.13 [−0.22;0.48], average identification B = 0.56 [0.32;0.81], high identification B = 1.00 [0.68;1.33]). Among weak identifiers, the relation between disinhibition and radical actions where nonsignificant but became significant when strong identifiers were considered (Fig. 1).
Our research shows that disinhibition and meanness, considered as dispositional individual differences, are related to various forms of support for radical group actions. We also have preliminary support for the role of a group's definitions and norms. That is, people with tem- peramental predispositions could be more prone to support violent actions on behalf of the groups that normalise violence. This fits well with the present understanding of radicalisation. For example, if the reason for radicalisation is a disproportionate commitment to ends that is linked to the devaluation or suppression of alternative (i.e., norma- tive, peaceful) considerations, then people who more easily devaluate alternatives (i.e., because of a lack of consideration of others' well- being) should be more prone to radicalisation. Similarly, people for whom radical behaviours are not only a means to highly valued ends but are also intrinsically reinforcing (i.e., these radical behaviours sa- tisfy the need for thrill-seeking) should be more prone to radicalisation. Here we see the important role of individual differences. Meanness was repeatedly (in three independent samples) related to acceptance of violent social change. This is aligned with clinical and personality research as meanness is understood as empowerment through cruelty and deficient empathy (Patrick et al., 2009). With such disdain for close attachments with others and engagement in active exploitativeness and confrontation, the positive attitudes towards vio- lence could be strengthened by the lack of considerations about the possible human cost of this violence and defiance of authority. Interplay between group identification and disinhibition has been noted as especially relevant for understanding willingness to engage in radical actions on behalf of the right-wing group. Previous studies pointed to the group norms and values as factors linked to the decision to use radical means. Studies show that group radicalisation and po- larisation are largely determined by important group norms, and these norms are often responsible for uninhibited behaviour (if that is a part of a prevailing group norm). In the context of CA, it is possible that impulsive individuals with hostile tendencies will collaborate with other people in a group, especially when group norms justify the violent means chosen by them. In this sense, radical collective actions might be a way to achieve personal benefits (e.g., allowing them to explicitly express a lack of restraint or disregard for others, namely out-group members). The interplay between group norms and individual differ- ences should be explored in future research. CRediT authorship contribution statement Tomasz Besta: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Data curation, Writing - original draft, Project administration. Beata Pastwa-Wojciechowska: Conceptualization, Methodology, Data cura- tion, Writing - review & editing. Michał Jaśkiewicz:Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing - review & editing. Andrzej Piotrowski: Conceptualization, Data curation, Writing - review & editing. Marcin Szulc: Conceptualization, Data curation, Writing - re- view & editing.
Appendix A. Details on participants, measures and procedure
One item attention check was included in the questionnaire to examine if participants follow the instruction: ‘This is an attention-checking question. We are checking whether people filling out the survey do not answer at random. Please, mark the number 2 below’. We included in the final analyses only people who do not failed the attention-checking question (877). Of those, some of the participants failed to answer items from specific scales, thus number of participants in each analysis may vary. Table 1 includes descriptive statistics. for the variables used in research (and number of participants that answered items from each measure).
Table 1 (Regression Analysis): https://ibb.co/qgZXrdV
Graphs (Radical CA; Fight & Die): https://ibb.co/pXcFPnX
Table (Descriptive Stats.): https://ibb.co/tJMR2jd
These links should stop working in 48 hours.
Lol self report of university students.
deleted by creator