#violenceprevention — Public Fediverse posts
Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #violenceprevention, aggregated by home.social.
-
DATE: October 1, 2026 at 04:30PM
SOURCE: PSYPOST.ORG** Research quality varies widely from fantastic to small exploratory studies. Please check research methods when conclusions are very important to you. **
-------------------------------------------------TITLE: Americans’ support for political violence fell in 2026, but MAGA supporters remain the most likely to justify it
A recent nationally representative survey suggests that American public support for political violence decreased heading into the 2026 midterm elections, contrary to popular fears. The findings indicate that while partisan tensions remain high, about three-quarters of U.S. adults say political violence is never justified in general, and very few say they would be willing to commit it. The research was published as a preprint on SocArXiv, meaning it has not yet been peer-reviewed.
Political violence involves the use of physical force to advance a political agenda. This can range from damaging property to threatening, injuring, or killing individuals for ideological reasons. Aside from the immediate physical harm, political violence has long-term effects on public mental health and social stability. As the 2026 midterm elections approached, many political observers and citizens alike expressed concern that a highly polarized environment might lead to a spike in violent behavior.
These fears are sometimes amplified by public opinion polls, but survey design can play a large role in how these attitudes are measured. A 2022 study suggested that poorly designed polling questions often inflate apparent support for partisan violence, pointing out that Americans’ actual willingness to commit physical harm is much narrower than some surveys imply.
To accurately track these attitudes over time, a research team led by Garen J. Wintemute, a distinguished professor of emergency medicine, the Baker-Teret Chair in Violence Prevention, and director of the Centers for Violence Prevention at the University of California, Davis, launched an annual, nationally representative survey project in 2022.
“Political violence poses a serious threat to the United States,” Wintemute told PsyPost. “We are seeking to understand factors associated with justification for and willingness to commit political violence.”
As part of this ongoing monitoring effort, a study covered by PsyPost in 2025 found that individuals who identify as “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) Republicans were more likely to view political violence as justified compared to other Americans, though they were not necessarily more willing to personally carry out such acts. With the 2026 midterms looming and several recent high-profile incidents of government-initiated violence in the news, chiefly in connection with mass deportation efforts, the researchers anticipated that public appetite for political violence might increase.
This expectation was bolstered by the fact that their 2025 survey had found an increase in justification for violence compared to 2024. They conducted the mid-2026 wave of their survey to test whether this sentiment continued to rise.
The researchers analyzed data from the fifth wave of their annual survey, which was administered online between May 15 and June 15, 2026. The sample included 7,752 adult participants drawn from the Ipsos KnowledgePanel, a probability-based panel designed to reflect the demographic makeup of the noninstitutionalized U.S. population.
The survey measured three main concepts: respondents’ beliefs about the potential for future civil war, their justification for using political violence, and their personal willingness to engage in it. For these questions, the survey explicitly defined violence as physical force strong enough that it could cause pain or injury to a person.
Respondents first indicated whether they felt violence was ever justified in general or to achieve any of 21 specific political goals. These goals included preserving a certain American way of life, stopping police violence, preventing voter fraud, or stopping illegal immigration. A new question in the 2026 survey asked those who said violence was “never justified” in general and for all 21 objectives to clarify their stance, checking to see if their rejection of violence was unconditional.
The subset of respondents who said violence was at least sometimes justified for at least one objective (about three-quarters of the sample) were then asked how willing they would be to personally damage property, threaten people, injure someone, or kill someone to advance a political objective. They were also asked about their willingness to target specific populations, such as elected officials, police officers, election workers, or members of an opposing political party. Finally, all participants were asked how likely they were to use a firearm in a situation where they felt political violence was justified.
The results point to a broad decline in support for political violence. Out of 53 survey items measuring anticipation of, justification for, and willingness to commit political violence, 51 showed small average decreases between mid-2025 and mid-2026, and 35 of these decreases were statistically significant.
“The general perception is that political violence is common and increasing,” Wintemute noted. “Neither of those things is true. And in our survey respondents, support for political violence fell from 2025 to 2026, across the political spectrum.”
In 2026, the share who said violence was usually or always justified for any single objective never exceeded 13 percent. But 35.8 percent said it was justified for at least one of the 21 objectives, down significantly from 38.7 percent in 2025. Additionally, among the nearly one-quarter of respondents who said violence was never justified for any of the listed objectives, over 91 percent clarified that their rejection was absolute and unconditional.
When it came to personal willingness to carry out violence, the numbers were even lower. Among the respondents who felt political violence was at least sometimes justified, only about 2 percent said they were “very or completely willing” to damage property, threaten, injure, or kill another person. Willingness to act in a group or as a lone actor also declined from the previous year.
When asked about firearms, 6.7 percent said it was very or extremely likely they would be armed in a situation where they felt political violence was justified, down from 9.1 percent. Only 1.5 percent said it was very or extremely likely they would shoot someone, and 1.1 percent said it was very or extremely likely they would threaten someone with a gun. All four firearm measures declined significantly from the previous year.
Only two measures rose: expectation of a civil war, which increased significantly (from 7.1 to 8.0 percent strongly agreeing), and the belief that one was needed to “set things right,” which edged up from 3.3 to 3.9 percent, a change that was not statistically significant.
The researchers also examined differences among political groups. MAGA Republicans and MAGA supporters who do not identify as Republicans tended to report higher levels of justification for political violence compared to Democrats and non-MAGA Republicans. For instance, 50.5 percent of MAGA Republicans and 52.5 percent of non-Republican MAGA supporters considered violence usually or always justified to advance at least one objective, compared with 35.8 percent overall. However, strong Democrats were the most supportive of violence “to remove Donald Trump from the presidency this year.”
Among respondents who considered violence justified, non-Republican MAGA supporters were more willing than others to commit violence against 12 of 14 target populations, ranking second behind strong Democrats for members of private armed militias and federal immigration agents. Declines in support occurred across the political spectrum overall, though changes within individual groups were mostly small. MAGA Republicans moved slightly in the other direction on several items about the potential need for violence and civil war.
“We found, as others have, that support for political violence is generally stronger on the political right than on the political left,” Wintemute explained. Noting that most respondents reject political violence in general, he added, “Willingness to commit political violence is another matter; it is rare across the board. The vast majority of respondents in our surveys reject political violence altogether, and most of those who consider it acceptable are not willing to become involved in it themselves.”
This dynamic mirrors the team’s earlier findings. In a separate study recently published in PLOS One, the researchers analyzed baseline data collected from the same survey project in 2022. They found that Republicans and conservatives were much more likely than Democrats and liberals to view political violence as justified for specific objectives.
James Druckman, a professor of political science at the University of Rochester who was not involved in the research, noted that this differs from much earlier work. “This contrasts with prior work that typically does not find differences across parties,” he told PsyPost. “The focus on various objectives also is novel.”
The 2022 data also revealed that this partisan gap disappeared when respondents were asked about their own violent intentions. Just as in the mid-2026 survey, fewer than 3 percent of people in 2022 were willing to threaten, injure, or kill someone for political purposes, with no meaningful differences between party affiliations. While strong Republicans in 2022 were more likely to anticipate being armed during a hypothetical political conflict, the actual willingness to use a weapon against another person remained exceptionally low across the board.
“They differentiate justification from willingness which is important, and show that very few people are willing to actually engage in violence,” Druckman noted. He added that the design of the 2022 study bolstered his confidence in the results: “I appreciate the high quality sample and inclusion of items on non-political violence prior to the political violence items.”
That survey asked about violence in nonpolitical situations, such as self-defense, before turning to political violence. “I also appreciate looking at self-defensive violence, showing it is more justifiable,” Druckman said.
These findings are in line with research covered by PsyPost in 2024, which found a similar nationwide decrease in support for political violence and belief in an imminent civil war between 2022 and 2023. Together, the data suggest declining support for political violence, even during periods of intense political stress.
In a statement accompanying the research, the study authors emphasized the power of public norms. “These findings are clear,” they wrote. “Entrapment in a spiral of escalating political violence is not inevitable in the United States. Those who promote political violence should recognize that they do not have the public’s support and that promoting violence may exact a political cost.”
“We who reject political violence must make our rejection known to our families, friends, and larger social networks,” the researchers added. “A public climate of non-acceptance for violence can help reduce the likelihood of it occurring.”
As for the 2022 data, Druckman cautioned that public opinion is deeply tied to the specific moment it is measured. “It is important to contextualize this to 2022 and that Democrats held power and it was during the pandemic still and major economic downturns and a gun-buying spike,” he explained. “One has to think carefully about generalizing (as would be the case at any point in time). The objectives also leaned more in the directions of items Republicans may have stronger beliefs about.”
This raises “an interesting question,” Druckman added: “If this is all a function of the timing in context or psychological predispositions or some mix?”
There are also a few things to keep in mind when interpreting the mid-2026 findings. First, survey responses about hypothetical willingness to commit violence do not perfectly predict how people will behave in real life. Some respondents might overstate their willingness to fight for a cause, while others might underreport their aggressive intentions because they know violence is socially unacceptable.
Also, the survey only asked about willingness to commit violence to the subset of people who first agreed that violence could be justified. Because different political groups passed this initial filter at different rates, the follow-up comparisons about personal willingness are based on varied sample proportions.
Finally, the survey was fielded over a single month in mid-2026, a period that included a mass shooting at a San Diego mosque, the president’s proposal to compensate supporters who had committed political violence, and ongoing international conflicts. The authors also note that small overall changes in the data could potentially mask larger individual shifts that cancel each other out.
Moving forward, the research team hopes to translate these findings into proactive solutions. “Next year we hope to launch a randomized trial of an intervention to prevent political violence,” Wintemute said.
The study, “Decreased Support for Political Violence in the United States in Mid-2026: Findings from a Nationally Representative Survey,” was authored by Garen J. Wintemute, Sonia L. Robinson, Daniel J. Tancredi, Krista Neumann, Shaina Sta. Cruz, Aaron B. Shev, Elizabeth A. Tomsich, Bradley Velasquez, Mona A. Wright, and Veronica A. Pear.
(Note: The article has been updated with quotes from James Druckman)
-------------------------------------------------
Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org
Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot
-------------------------------------------------
#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #PoliticalViolence #Midterms2026 #PublicOpinion #MAGA #PoliticalViolenceWhenJustified #ViolencePrevention #SurveyResearch #IpsosKnowledgePanel #PublicNorms #CivilDiscourse
-
DATE: October 1, 2026 at 04:30PM
SOURCE: PSYPOST.ORG** Research quality varies widely from fantastic to small exploratory studies. Please check research methods when conclusions are very important to you. **
-------------------------------------------------TITLE: Americans’ support for political violence fell in 2026, but MAGA supporters remain the most likely to justify it
A recent nationally representative survey suggests that American public support for political violence decreased heading into the 2026 midterm elections, contrary to popular fears. The findings indicate that while partisan tensions remain high, about three-quarters of U.S. adults say political violence is never justified in general, and very few say they would be willing to commit it. The research was published as a preprint on SocArXiv, meaning it has not yet been peer-reviewed.
Political violence involves the use of physical force to advance a political agenda. This can range from damaging property to threatening, injuring, or killing individuals for ideological reasons. Aside from the immediate physical harm, political violence has long-term effects on public mental health and social stability. As the 2026 midterm elections approached, many political observers and citizens alike expressed concern that a highly polarized environment might lead to a spike in violent behavior.
These fears are sometimes amplified by public opinion polls, but survey design can play a large role in how these attitudes are measured. A 2022 study suggested that poorly designed polling questions often inflate apparent support for partisan violence, pointing out that Americans’ actual willingness to commit physical harm is much narrower than some surveys imply.
To accurately track these attitudes over time, a research team led by Garen J. Wintemute, a distinguished professor of emergency medicine, the Baker-Teret Chair in Violence Prevention, and director of the Centers for Violence Prevention at the University of California, Davis, launched an annual, nationally representative survey project in 2022.
“Political violence poses a serious threat to the United States,” Wintemute told PsyPost. “We are seeking to understand factors associated with justification for and willingness to commit political violence.”
As part of this ongoing monitoring effort, a study covered by PsyPost in 2025 found that individuals who identify as “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) Republicans were more likely to view political violence as justified compared to other Americans, though they were not necessarily more willing to personally carry out such acts. With the 2026 midterms looming and several recent high-profile incidents of government-initiated violence in the news, chiefly in connection with mass deportation efforts, the researchers anticipated that public appetite for political violence might increase.
This expectation was bolstered by the fact that their 2025 survey had found an increase in justification for violence compared to 2024. They conducted the mid-2026 wave of their survey to test whether this sentiment continued to rise.
The researchers analyzed data from the fifth wave of their annual survey, which was administered online between May 15 and June 15, 2026. The sample included 7,752 adult participants drawn from the Ipsos KnowledgePanel, a probability-based panel designed to reflect the demographic makeup of the noninstitutionalized U.S. population.
The survey measured three main concepts: respondents’ beliefs about the potential for future civil war, their justification for using political violence, and their personal willingness to engage in it. For these questions, the survey explicitly defined violence as physical force strong enough that it could cause pain or injury to a person.
Respondents first indicated whether they felt violence was ever justified in general or to achieve any of 21 specific political goals. These goals included preserving a certain American way of life, stopping police violence, preventing voter fraud, or stopping illegal immigration. A new question in the 2026 survey asked those who said violence was “never justified” in general and for all 21 objectives to clarify their stance, checking to see if their rejection of violence was unconditional.
The subset of respondents who said violence was at least sometimes justified for at least one objective (about three-quarters of the sample) were then asked how willing they would be to personally damage property, threaten people, injure someone, or kill someone to advance a political objective. They were also asked about their willingness to target specific populations, such as elected officials, police officers, election workers, or members of an opposing political party. Finally, all participants were asked how likely they were to use a firearm in a situation where they felt political violence was justified.
The results point to a broad decline in support for political violence. Out of 53 survey items measuring anticipation of, justification for, and willingness to commit political violence, 51 showed small average decreases between mid-2025 and mid-2026, and 35 of these decreases were statistically significant.
“The general perception is that political violence is common and increasing,” Wintemute noted. “Neither of those things is true. And in our survey respondents, support for political violence fell from 2025 to 2026, across the political spectrum.”
In 2026, the share who said violence was usually or always justified for any single objective never exceeded 13 percent. But 35.8 percent said it was justified for at least one of the 21 objectives, down significantly from 38.7 percent in 2025. Additionally, among the nearly one-quarter of respondents who said violence was never justified for any of the listed objectives, over 91 percent clarified that their rejection was absolute and unconditional.
When it came to personal willingness to carry out violence, the numbers were even lower. Among the respondents who felt political violence was at least sometimes justified, only about 2 percent said they were “very or completely willing” to damage property, threaten, injure, or kill another person. Willingness to act in a group or as a lone actor also declined from the previous year.
When asked about firearms, 6.7 percent said it was very or extremely likely they would be armed in a situation where they felt political violence was justified, down from 9.1 percent. Only 1.5 percent said it was very or extremely likely they would shoot someone, and 1.1 percent said it was very or extremely likely they would threaten someone with a gun. All four firearm measures declined significantly from the previous year.
Only two measures rose: expectation of a civil war, which increased significantly (from 7.1 to 8.0 percent strongly agreeing), and the belief that one was needed to “set things right,” which edged up from 3.3 to 3.9 percent, a change that was not statistically significant.
The researchers also examined differences among political groups. MAGA Republicans and MAGA supporters who do not identify as Republicans tended to report higher levels of justification for political violence compared to Democrats and non-MAGA Republicans. For instance, 50.5 percent of MAGA Republicans and 52.5 percent of non-Republican MAGA supporters considered violence usually or always justified to advance at least one objective, compared with 35.8 percent overall. However, strong Democrats were the most supportive of violence “to remove Donald Trump from the presidency this year.”
Among respondents who considered violence justified, non-Republican MAGA supporters were more willing than others to commit violence against 12 of 14 target populations, ranking second behind strong Democrats for members of private armed militias and federal immigration agents. Declines in support occurred across the political spectrum overall, though changes within individual groups were mostly small. MAGA Republicans moved slightly in the other direction on several items about the potential need for violence and civil war.
“We found, as others have, that support for political violence is generally stronger on the political right than on the political left,” Wintemute explained. Noting that most respondents reject political violence in general, he added, “Willingness to commit political violence is another matter; it is rare across the board. The vast majority of respondents in our surveys reject political violence altogether, and most of those who consider it acceptable are not willing to become involved in it themselves.”
This dynamic mirrors the team’s earlier findings. In a separate study recently published in PLOS One, the researchers analyzed baseline data collected from the same survey project in 2022. They found that Republicans and conservatives were much more likely than Democrats and liberals to view political violence as justified for specific objectives.
James Druckman, a professor of political science at the University of Rochester who was not involved in the research, noted that this differs from much earlier work. “This contrasts with prior work that typically does not find differences across parties,” he told PsyPost. “The focus on various objectives also is novel.”
The 2022 data also revealed that this partisan gap disappeared when respondents were asked about their own violent intentions. Just as in the mid-2026 survey, fewer than 3 percent of people in 2022 were willing to threaten, injure, or kill someone for political purposes, with no meaningful differences between party affiliations. While strong Republicans in 2022 were more likely to anticipate being armed during a hypothetical political conflict, the actual willingness to use a weapon against another person remained exceptionally low across the board.
“They differentiate justification from willingness which is important, and show that very few people are willing to actually engage in violence,” Druckman noted. He added that the design of the 2022 study bolstered his confidence in the results: “I appreciate the high quality sample and inclusion of items on non-political violence prior to the political violence items.”
That survey asked about violence in nonpolitical situations, such as self-defense, before turning to political violence. “I also appreciate looking at self-defensive violence, showing it is more justifiable,” Druckman said.
These findings are in line with research covered by PsyPost in 2024, which found a similar nationwide decrease in support for political violence and belief in an imminent civil war between 2022 and 2023. Together, the data suggest declining support for political violence, even during periods of intense political stress.
In a statement accompanying the research, the study authors emphasized the power of public norms. “These findings are clear,” they wrote. “Entrapment in a spiral of escalating political violence is not inevitable in the United States. Those who promote political violence should recognize that they do not have the public’s support and that promoting violence may exact a political cost.”
“We who reject political violence must make our rejection known to our families, friends, and larger social networks,” the researchers added. “A public climate of non-acceptance for violence can help reduce the likelihood of it occurring.”
As for the 2022 data, Druckman cautioned that public opinion is deeply tied to the specific moment it is measured. “It is important to contextualize this to 2022 and that Democrats held power and it was during the pandemic still and major economic downturns and a gun-buying spike,” he explained. “One has to think carefully about generalizing (as would be the case at any point in time). The objectives also leaned more in the directions of items Republicans may have stronger beliefs about.”
This raises “an interesting question,” Druckman added: “If this is all a function of the timing in context or psychological predispositions or some mix?”
There are also a few things to keep in mind when interpreting the mid-2026 findings. First, survey responses about hypothetical willingness to commit violence do not perfectly predict how people will behave in real life. Some respondents might overstate their willingness to fight for a cause, while others might underreport their aggressive intentions because they know violence is socially unacceptable.
Also, the survey only asked about willingness to commit violence to the subset of people who first agreed that violence could be justified. Because different political groups passed this initial filter at different rates, the follow-up comparisons about personal willingness are based on varied sample proportions.
Finally, the survey was fielded over a single month in mid-2026, a period that included a mass shooting at a San Diego mosque, the president’s proposal to compensate supporters who had committed political violence, and ongoing international conflicts. The authors also note that small overall changes in the data could potentially mask larger individual shifts that cancel each other out.
Moving forward, the research team hopes to translate these findings into proactive solutions. “Next year we hope to launch a randomized trial of an intervention to prevent political violence,” Wintemute said.
The study, “Decreased Support for Political Violence in the United States in Mid-2026: Findings from a Nationally Representative Survey,” was authored by Garen J. Wintemute, Sonia L. Robinson, Daniel J. Tancredi, Krista Neumann, Shaina Sta. Cruz, Aaron B. Shev, Elizabeth A. Tomsich, Bradley Velasquez, Mona A. Wright, and Veronica A. Pear.
(Note: The article has been updated with quotes from James Druckman)
-------------------------------------------------
Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org
Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot
-------------------------------------------------
#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #PoliticalViolence #Midterms2026 #PublicOpinion #MAGA #PoliticalViolenceWhenJustified #ViolencePrevention #SurveyResearch #IpsosKnowledgePanel #PublicNorms #CivilDiscourse
-
DATE: October 1, 2026 at 04:30PM
SOURCE: PSYPOST.ORG** Research quality varies widely from fantastic to small exploratory studies. Please check research methods when conclusions are very important to you. **
-------------------------------------------------TITLE: Americans’ support for political violence fell in 2026, but MAGA supporters remain the most likely to justify it
A recent nationally representative survey suggests that American public support for political violence decreased heading into the 2026 midterm elections, contrary to popular fears. The findings indicate that while partisan tensions remain high, about three-quarters of U.S. adults say political violence is never justified in general, and very few say they would be willing to commit it. The research was published as a preprint on SocArXiv, meaning it has not yet been peer-reviewed.
Political violence involves the use of physical force to advance a political agenda. This can range from damaging property to threatening, injuring, or killing individuals for ideological reasons. Aside from the immediate physical harm, political violence has long-term effects on public mental health and social stability. As the 2026 midterm elections approached, many political observers and citizens alike expressed concern that a highly polarized environment might lead to a spike in violent behavior.
These fears are sometimes amplified by public opinion polls, but survey design can play a large role in how these attitudes are measured. A 2022 study suggested that poorly designed polling questions often inflate apparent support for partisan violence, pointing out that Americans’ actual willingness to commit physical harm is much narrower than some surveys imply.
To accurately track these attitudes over time, a research team led by Garen J. Wintemute, a distinguished professor of emergency medicine, the Baker-Teret Chair in Violence Prevention, and director of the Centers for Violence Prevention at the University of California, Davis, launched an annual, nationally representative survey project in 2022.
“Political violence poses a serious threat to the United States,” Wintemute told PsyPost. “We are seeking to understand factors associated with justification for and willingness to commit political violence.”
As part of this ongoing monitoring effort, a study covered by PsyPost in 2025 found that individuals who identify as “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) Republicans were more likely to view political violence as justified compared to other Americans, though they were not necessarily more willing to personally carry out such acts. With the 2026 midterms looming and several recent high-profile incidents of government-initiated violence in the news, chiefly in connection with mass deportation efforts, the researchers anticipated that public appetite for political violence might increase.
This expectation was bolstered by the fact that their 2025 survey had found an increase in justification for violence compared to 2024. They conducted the mid-2026 wave of their survey to test whether this sentiment continued to rise.
The researchers analyzed data from the fifth wave of their annual survey, which was administered online between May 15 and June 15, 2026. The sample included 7,752 adult participants drawn from the Ipsos KnowledgePanel, a probability-based panel designed to reflect the demographic makeup of the noninstitutionalized U.S. population.
The survey measured three main concepts: respondents’ beliefs about the potential for future civil war, their justification for using political violence, and their personal willingness to engage in it. For these questions, the survey explicitly defined violence as physical force strong enough that it could cause pain or injury to a person.
Respondents first indicated whether they felt violence was ever justified in general or to achieve any of 21 specific political goals. These goals included preserving a certain American way of life, stopping police violence, preventing voter fraud, or stopping illegal immigration. A new question in the 2026 survey asked those who said violence was “never justified” in general and for all 21 objectives to clarify their stance, checking to see if their rejection of violence was unconditional.
The subset of respondents who said violence was at least sometimes justified for at least one objective (about three-quarters of the sample) were then asked how willing they would be to personally damage property, threaten people, injure someone, or kill someone to advance a political objective. They were also asked about their willingness to target specific populations, such as elected officials, police officers, election workers, or members of an opposing political party. Finally, all participants were asked how likely they were to use a firearm in a situation where they felt political violence was justified.
The results point to a broad decline in support for political violence. Out of 53 survey items measuring anticipation of, justification for, and willingness to commit political violence, 51 showed small average decreases between mid-2025 and mid-2026, and 35 of these decreases were statistically significant.
“The general perception is that political violence is common and increasing,” Wintemute noted. “Neither of those things is true. And in our survey respondents, support for political violence fell from 2025 to 2026, across the political spectrum.”
In 2026, the share who said violence was usually or always justified for any single objective never exceeded 13 percent. But 35.8 percent said it was justified for at least one of the 21 objectives, down significantly from 38.7 percent in 2025. Additionally, among the nearly one-quarter of respondents who said violence was never justified for any of the listed objectives, over 91 percent clarified that their rejection was absolute and unconditional.
When it came to personal willingness to carry out violence, the numbers were even lower. Among the respondents who felt political violence was at least sometimes justified, only about 2 percent said they were “very or completely willing” to damage property, threaten, injure, or kill another person. Willingness to act in a group or as a lone actor also declined from the previous year.
When asked about firearms, 6.7 percent said it was very or extremely likely they would be armed in a situation where they felt political violence was justified, down from 9.1 percent. Only 1.5 percent said it was very or extremely likely they would shoot someone, and 1.1 percent said it was very or extremely likely they would threaten someone with a gun. All four firearm measures declined significantly from the previous year.
Only two measures rose: expectation of a civil war, which increased significantly (from 7.1 to 8.0 percent strongly agreeing), and the belief that one was needed to “set things right,” which edged up from 3.3 to 3.9 percent, a change that was not statistically significant.
The researchers also examined differences among political groups. MAGA Republicans and MAGA supporters who do not identify as Republicans tended to report higher levels of justification for political violence compared to Democrats and non-MAGA Republicans. For instance, 50.5 percent of MAGA Republicans and 52.5 percent of non-Republican MAGA supporters considered violence usually or always justified to advance at least one objective, compared with 35.8 percent overall. However, strong Democrats were the most supportive of violence “to remove Donald Trump from the presidency this year.”
Among respondents who considered violence justified, non-Republican MAGA supporters were more willing than others to commit violence against 12 of 14 target populations, ranking second behind strong Democrats for members of private armed militias and federal immigration agents. Declines in support occurred across the political spectrum overall, though changes within individual groups were mostly small. MAGA Republicans moved slightly in the other direction on several items about the potential need for violence and civil war.
“We found, as others have, that support for political violence is generally stronger on the political right than on the political left,” Wintemute explained. Noting that most respondents reject political violence in general, he added, “Willingness to commit political violence is another matter; it is rare across the board. The vast majority of respondents in our surveys reject political violence altogether, and most of those who consider it acceptable are not willing to become involved in it themselves.”
This dynamic mirrors the team’s earlier findings. In a separate study recently published in PLOS One, the researchers analyzed baseline data collected from the same survey project in 2022. They found that Republicans and conservatives were much more likely than Democrats and liberals to view political violence as justified for specific objectives.
James Druckman, a professor of political science at the University of Rochester who was not involved in the research, noted that this differs from much earlier work. “This contrasts with prior work that typically does not find differences across parties,” he told PsyPost. “The focus on various objectives also is novel.”
The 2022 data also revealed that this partisan gap disappeared when respondents were asked about their own violent intentions. Just as in the mid-2026 survey, fewer than 3 percent of people in 2022 were willing to threaten, injure, or kill someone for political purposes, with no meaningful differences between party affiliations. While strong Republicans in 2022 were more likely to anticipate being armed during a hypothetical political conflict, the actual willingness to use a weapon against another person remained exceptionally low across the board.
“They differentiate justification from willingness which is important, and show that very few people are willing to actually engage in violence,” Druckman noted. He added that the design of the 2022 study bolstered his confidence in the results: “I appreciate the high quality sample and inclusion of items on non-political violence prior to the political violence items.”
That survey asked about violence in nonpolitical situations, such as self-defense, before turning to political violence. “I also appreciate looking at self-defensive violence, showing it is more justifiable,” Druckman said.
These findings are in line with research covered by PsyPost in 2024, which found a similar nationwide decrease in support for political violence and belief in an imminent civil war between 2022 and 2023. Together, the data suggest declining support for political violence, even during periods of intense political stress.
In a statement accompanying the research, the study authors emphasized the power of public norms. “These findings are clear,” they wrote. “Entrapment in a spiral of escalating political violence is not inevitable in the United States. Those who promote political violence should recognize that they do not have the public’s support and that promoting violence may exact a political cost.”
“We who reject political violence must make our rejection known to our families, friends, and larger social networks,” the researchers added. “A public climate of non-acceptance for violence can help reduce the likelihood of it occurring.”
As for the 2022 data, Druckman cautioned that public opinion is deeply tied to the specific moment it is measured. “It is important to contextualize this to 2022 and that Democrats held power and it was during the pandemic still and major economic downturns and a gun-buying spike,” he explained. “One has to think carefully about generalizing (as would be the case at any point in time). The objectives also leaned more in the directions of items Republicans may have stronger beliefs about.”
This raises “an interesting question,” Druckman added: “If this is all a function of the timing in context or psychological predispositions or some mix?”
There are also a few things to keep in mind when interpreting the mid-2026 findings. First, survey responses about hypothetical willingness to commit violence do not perfectly predict how people will behave in real life. Some respondents might overstate their willingness to fight for a cause, while others might underreport their aggressive intentions because they know violence is socially unacceptable.
Also, the survey only asked about willingness to commit violence to the subset of people who first agreed that violence could be justified. Because different political groups passed this initial filter at different rates, the follow-up comparisons about personal willingness are based on varied sample proportions.
Finally, the survey was fielded over a single month in mid-2026, a period that included a mass shooting at a San Diego mosque, the president’s proposal to compensate supporters who had committed political violence, and ongoing international conflicts. The authors also note that small overall changes in the data could potentially mask larger individual shifts that cancel each other out.
Moving forward, the research team hopes to translate these findings into proactive solutions. “Next year we hope to launch a randomized trial of an intervention to prevent political violence,” Wintemute said.
The study, “Decreased Support for Political Violence in the United States in Mid-2026: Findings from a Nationally Representative Survey,” was authored by Garen J. Wintemute, Sonia L. Robinson, Daniel J. Tancredi, Krista Neumann, Shaina Sta. Cruz, Aaron B. Shev, Elizabeth A. Tomsich, Bradley Velasquez, Mona A. Wright, and Veronica A. Pear.
(Note: The article has been updated with quotes from James Druckman)
-------------------------------------------------
Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org
Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot
-------------------------------------------------
#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #PoliticalViolence #Midterms2026 #PublicOpinion #MAGA #PoliticalViolenceWhenJustified #ViolencePrevention #SurveyResearch #IpsosKnowledgePanel #PublicNorms #CivilDiscourse
-
DATE: September 30, 2026 at 08:49AM
SOURCE: SCIENCE DAILY PSYCHIATIRY FEEDTITLE: Cannabis users were twice as likely to commit violence, review finds
URL: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/09/260930020255.htm
A review of more than 265,000 people found that cannabis use was associated with higher rates of both committing violence and becoming a victim of it. The researchers say the link is significant but does not prove cannabis itself is the cause.
URL: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/09/260930020255.htm
-------------------------------------------------
Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org
Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot
-------------------------------------------------
#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #Cannabis #ViolenceResearch #PublicHealth #SubstanceUse #CannabisAndViolence #MentalHealth #DrugPolicy #ViolencePrevention #CannabisNews #HealthStudies
-
DATE: September 30, 2026 at 08:49AM
SOURCE: SCIENCE DAILY PSYCHIATIRY FEEDTITLE: Cannabis users were twice as likely to commit violence, review finds
URL: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/09/260930020255.htm
A review of more than 265,000 people found that cannabis use was associated with higher rates of both committing violence and becoming a victim of it. The researchers say the link is significant but does not prove cannabis itself is the cause.
URL: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/09/260930020255.htm
-------------------------------------------------
Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org
Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot
-------------------------------------------------
#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #Cannabis #ViolenceResearch #PublicHealth #SubstanceUse #CannabisAndViolence #MentalHealth #DrugPolicy #ViolencePrevention #CannabisNews #HealthStudies
-
DATE: September 30, 2026 at 08:49AM
SOURCE: SCIENCE DAILY PSYCHIATIRY FEEDTITLE: Cannabis users were twice as likely to commit violence, review finds
URL: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/09/260930020255.htm
A review of more than 265,000 people found that cannabis use was associated with higher rates of both committing violence and becoming a victim of it. The researchers say the link is significant but does not prove cannabis itself is the cause.
URL: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/09/260930020255.htm
-------------------------------------------------
Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org
Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot
-------------------------------------------------
#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #Cannabis #ViolenceResearch #PublicHealth #SubstanceUse #CannabisAndViolence #MentalHealth #DrugPolicy #ViolencePrevention #CannabisNews #HealthStudies