Sociologists Alexander Yendell and David Herbert investigated the psychological underpinnings of violence. Their study revealed that cultural images of violent masculinity are the most powerful individual predictor of public support for war. Specifically, conducted among British adults, their research highlights how psychological traits, gender norms, and authoritarian attitudes combine to legitimize military conflict and violence.
The Masculinity Factor: How Cultural Norms Legitimize Militarism and Support for War
Background
The study, which was published on 30 September 2025 in the open-access journal Politics and Governance, examined the psychological and sociocultural factors influencing general attitudes toward war and the legitimization of armed conflict using the 2023 PAVEX-UK survey, which was participated in by 1009 respondents between the ages of 15 and 74.
Note that the population survey involved a sample that reflected national demographics for gender, age, and education. It was chosen to ensure balanced representation across key social groups. The respondents specifically answered detailed questions concerning ideology, personality traits, early experiences, and beliefs about violence and masculinity.
Hierarchical multiple regression analysis was applied by introducing variables in successive stages to identify which ones best predicted support for war. This measured the incremental influence of demographic, ideological, and psychological factors. Both statistical modeling and psychological scales allowed the team to isolate specific drivers of militaristic attitudes.
Findings
The results demonstrated that gender-based views legitimizing violence, authoritarian tendencies, and specific dark personality traits were central predictors of generalized war support. The model explained approximately 38 percent of the total variance in attitudes toward war. This is considered substantial within psychological and sociological research.
• Violent Masculinity as the Strongest Predictor: Individuals who endorse the belief that men must be tough and ready to use violence showed the highest levels of support for war. This pattern suggests that cultural expectations of male aggression and dominance remain deeply tied to public acceptance of military action.
• Authoritarian Submission and Obedience to Power: Those with stronger tendencies toward obedience and respect for authority were more likely to support war. They view hierarchical control and leadership decisions as legitimate. This makes them more receptive to arguments favoring national or military aggression.
• Radicalization and Justification of Violence: Respondents who agreed that breaking rules or using violence is acceptable to achieve political change also supported war more frequently. This connection indicates that extremist thinking, regardless of ideological direction, normalizes violence for solving conflicts.
• Insights on Specific Dark Personality Traits: Sadism was the most relevant to war support among dark personality traits. Respondents scoring high on this trait were more inclined to perceive armed conflict positively. This finding implies an underlying psychological attraction to sanctioned forms of violence.
• Particular Social Dominance Orientation and Belief: Those who believe that certain groups should dominate others exhibited stronger war support. This belief system assumes that hierarchy and inequality are natural and aligns with a worldview that sees warfare as a legitimate expression of group competition and power assertion.
• Specific Political Leaning and Gender Influence: Men and politically right-leaning individuals expressed more favorable attitudes toward war than women and left-leaning respondents. These effects weakened once psychological and masculinity variables were included. Ideology alone cannot explain warfare leanings.
• Relevance of Childhood Experiences and Indirect Impact: Experiences of neglect or maltreatment during childhood correlated with higher authoritarian and aggressive attitudes in adulthood. While the direct influence of childhood experiences on war support was modest, these factors shaped relevant psychological traits.
Takeaways
The findings indicate that public support for military conflict is not determined purely by politics or national security interests. It is also a product of cultural socialization and psychological disposition. Masculine ideals that glorify strength and dominance cultivate acceptance of violence at both interpersonal and societal or greater national levels.
Note that the research highlights the role of authoritarian submission in maintaining societies that tolerate militarization. Specifically, when individuals view obedience to leaders as an essential moral duty, they are more likely to justify wars initiated by those authorities. This dynamic reinforces the cycle between authoritarian power and public consent.
The results also underscore the fact that efforts to promote peace must extend beyond diplomacy and strategy. Hence, for educators and policymakers, preventing conflict also depends on reshaping values that equate power with violence. Addressing gender norms and authoritarian attitudes may thus be as crucial as traditional peace negotiations.
FURTHER READING AND REFERENCE
- Yendell, A. and Herbert, D. 2025. “Authoritarianism and the Psychology of War: Exploring Personality Traits in the Legitimation of Military Conflict.” Politics and Governance. 13. DOI: 17645/pag.10292