The suppression-incongruence model of extremism: Investigating extremism through a new lens
Date
2023-01-24Author
Tetreault, Christie
Metadata
Show full item recordUsage
This item's downloads: 391 (view details)
Abstract
Introduction: Psychological and experimental research is increasingly contributing to our
understanding of extremism. This thesis presents and investigates a potentially promising avenue
of research in the area of extremism—a suppression-incongruence model that may contribute to
the understanding of relevant processes that lead to extremist thought and behavior. The model
amalgamates and expands upon existing models, integrating dispositional, cognitive, and
behavioral facets, as well as other individual differences, to explicate the pathways to extremism.
In the suppression-incongruence model, suppression and incongruence are bidirectional,
meaning suppression of one’s thoughts, feelings, beliefs (TFBs), emotions, or behaviors can lead
to incongruence, and incongruence between one’s TFBs, emotions, or behaviors can lead to
suppression. The model hypothesizes that the longer one is then in the suppression-incongruence
state, the more extreme the TFBs, emotions, or behaviors become. Ultimately, when the
suppressed or incongruent TFBs, emotions, or behaviors are eventually “released,” a rebound
effect arises, potentially leading to a more extreme response.
Aim: The primary aim of this thesis was to examine different aspects of the suppressionincongruence
model with various forms of extremism: hacktivism (a portmanteau of hacking and
activism), state-sponsored extremism (SSE), and (proclivity for) extreme cognitions.
Objectives: The overall objective of the program of research is to better understand the
processes or pathways to radicalization and extremism. Each empirical study had its own
objective. The objective in Study 1 was to investigate if pre-existing beliefs influenced
participants’ bystander support for extremist behavior that aligned with those pre-existing
beliefs. Ultimately, are individuals willing to support a group’s cause they already agree with
regardless of the methods that the group uses (i.e., does the end justify the means)? This study
was designed to assess whether or not pre-existing beliefs that aligned with the hacktivists would
facilitate moral connectedness to the actors in the vignette. This moral connectedness then could
predict greater willingness to provide financial support for the hacktivists’ cause. In Study 2, the
main objective was to test if participants who were asked to suppress or express their opinions
about the eco-hacktivism article from Study 1 would experience an increase or decrease in
rebound effects. For Study 3, the objective was to examine dispositional traits as predictors for
sympathies towards violent and non-violent forms of SSE. Scoring higher on the dispositional
traits that were investigated (the Dark Tetrad—Machiavellianism, narcissism, psychopathy, sadism—and right-wing authoritarianism) has also been theorized to be associated with regular
behavioral suppression and an increased proclivity for antisociality. This study would allow
examination of this suppression aspect of the suppression-incongruence model. The objective for
the last study, Study 4, was to examine how suppression and cognitive rigidity predicted a
proclivity for extreme cognitions. This would allow both protective and risk factors for having a
propensity for more extreme cognitions to be examined. In terms of the suppressionincongruence
model, this would investigate cognitive suppression predicting more cognitive
extremism. The studies, taken together, test different facets and aspects of the suppressionincongruence
model of extremism to better understand susceptibilities and pathways to
radicalization and extremism.
Methods: In Study 1, an online cross-sectional study was conducted (N = 350) to investigate if
hacktivists could garner bystander support. The study included an eco-hacktivism vignette and
two morality scales. The vignette included three actors (the hacktivists themselves, their
spokesperson, and a supportive social media commentator). Two morality scales were
developed: one that probed moral judgement relating to the hacktivists and the other probed
moral judgement relating to the spokesperson and social media commentator. Pre-existing beliefs
on the importance of the environment and moral connectivity to these three actors were
examined for their predictive power towards a willingness to donate to a crowdfunding campaign
in support of the hacktivists. Using the hacktivism vignette from Study 1, in Study 2, participants
(N = 158) were randomly assigned to three conditions to examine if they would experience
rebound effects following instructions to suppress (Condition 1) or express (Condition 2) their
TFBs about the hacktivism article. There was a control condition (Condition 3) where
participants were given no instructions relating to expression/suppression of their TFBs. The
rebound effects, both objective (number of intrusive thoughts) and subjective (positive and
negative affect pre- and post-test) effects were analyzed for group differences. In Study 3 (N =
398), an online cross-sectional study examined how scoring higher on specific dispositional traits
(Dark Tetrad and right-wing authoritarianism) that have been theorized to use suppression
predicted a willingness to support four forms of SSE. In Study 4 (N = 1,249), a final online
cross-sectional study was conducted to predict conspiracy mentality (i.e., proclivity for extreme
cognitions) through traits and dispositional traits that theoretically increased cognitive rigidity
and incongruence. The traits were suppression, sense of self, and critical thinking, and the dispositional traits were the Dark Tetrad, right-wing authoritarianism, and collective narcissism.
An exploratory theoretical model was developed, and the factor structure was assessed before
testing the causal model.
Results: Findings from Study 1 suggest that different facets of moral connectedness to the three
actors in the hacktivism vignette (Moral altruism with the hacktivists; Moral social connectivity
with the spokesperson; and Moral behavioral intention with the social media commentator)
predicted a willingness to contribute to the hacktivists’ cause. Pre-existing beliefs that aligned
with the hacktivists’ cause were mediated by moral connectivity to the hacktivists and their
spokesperson (i.e., Moral altruism and Moral social connectivity mediated the relationship
between pre-existing beliefs and willingness to donate to the hacktivists’ cause). However, moral
connectedness to the supportive social media commentator (Moral behavioral intention) did not
mediate the relationship between pre-existing beliefs and the willingness to donate. The model
explained 41% of the variance of willingness to donate to a crowdfunding campaign to support
the hacktivists. The results from Study 2 suggest that regular suppression use was significantly
associated with more negative and less positive affect. However, the experimental manipulation
was not successful and did not lead to the hypothesized interaction effects between suppression
and expression on the number of intrusive thoughts and affect changes (i.e., there were no
significant group differences). The findings from Study 3 showed that scoring higher on the dark
personality traits predicted more bystander support for varying forms of SSE. Contradictory to
the hypothesis, suppression was not a significant predictor for most forms of SSE. Higher scores
on some of the dark personality traits (Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and sadism but not
narcissism nor right-wing authoritarianism) were associated with higher everyday suppression
use. The explained variances ranged from approximately 7% to 20% depending on the form of
SSE. In Study 4, a proclivity for extreme cognitions (i.e., conspiracy mentality) was significantly
predicted by higher suppression use, collective narcissism, right-wing authoritarianism
(authority/order), and critical thinking (engagement) scores. However, scores on the Dark Tetrad
traits, right-wing authoritarianism (morality), and sense of self were non-significant predictors.
The model explained 20% of the variance in proclivity for extreme cognitions.
Conclusion: These four studies taken together provide evidence in support of the suppressionincongruence
model of extremism. In Study 1, moral connectedness to different actors in the
hacktivism vignette influenced bystander support for the hacktivists’ cause. As moral connectedness for the hacktivists and their spokesperson mediated the relationship between preexisting
beliefs on environmental pollution and the willingness to donate, participants could be
engaging in moral suppression. The moral suppression could indicate participants were
suppressing morality to stay congruent with their pre-existing beliefs to the detriment of
objective morality (i.e., hacking is amoral), resulting in a prediction of more bystander support
for the extreme behavior. This suppression-to-congruence facet had not been anticipated.
Compared to previous research, the higher ecologically valid design investigating how
hacktivism works in the real world provides insight into facets that predict bystander support for
this form of extremism. For Study 2, there was further support found for the suppressionincongruence
model with suppression being associated with more negative affect. This
association may indicate a “bottling” up of emotions that could result in a stronger release of
them subsequently. As this was one of the first studies in this area to be conducted online, there
were many lessons learned on how better to implement this experimental design in future
studies. Study 3’s results highlight that triggering of a dispositional trait may elicit bystander
support for extremist behavior. The results of this study suggest that once triggered, the
proclivity for antisociality and sensitivity to incongruence could become important in predicting
more bystander support for SSE, thus providing support for the suppression-incongruence model.
The results from Study 4 suggest that a trigger may also be important in cognitive rigidity
predicting a proclivity for extreme cognitions. Suppression was a significant predictor for the
proclivity for extreme cognitions, and this adds further support to the suppression-incongruence
model that suppression can predict more extremism. With higher critical thinking (engagement)
predicting more proclivity for extreme cognitions, this could indicate that participants may be
suppressing (or not utilizing) their critical thinking in order to maintain their pre-existing beliefs
that align with the extreme cognition measure. This could be similar to Study 1’s findings where
there is a suppression-congruence facet to more extremism.
Implications and Future Research: From a theoretical perspective, the suppressionincongruence
model of extremism is supported, in part, by the empirical research of this thesis.
From Study 1, based on the findings, moral connectedness to extremist actors may be a factor
that impacts moral suppression and disengagement, which allows individuals to suspend their
ethical standards, leading to more (support of) extremist behavior. This could be investigated in
future research to get a better understanding of how different facets of moral connectedness influence suppressing one’s moral compass to show susceptibility to radicalization and
extremism. In Study 3, scoring higher on some of the dark personality traits (Machiavellianism,
psychopathy, and sadism) was associated with an increased use of suppression. This had been
theorized but not previously explored in research, and these results may have implications for
interventions that can be explored further. The suppression-incongruence model and findings
from this thesis add to the evidence base that could assist in developing community-based
interventions to take a pre-emptive approach to minimizing susceptibility to extremism. Future
research should investigate the causality of the suppression-incongruence model to investigate
which facets influence which pathways to radicalization and bystander support for and
engagement in extremism.