One night, a teenage boy finds himself scrolling through online sermons after a painful conflict at home. He does not seek ideology; he seeks solace. The speaker’s voice is calm and clear, promising purpose, purity and a congregation for the “lost”. As the preaching continues, the divisions between faith, identity and certainty begin to fade. What was once a path toward comfort quietly gives way to a pull toward dogmatic beliefs that promise protection from his fears. Such stories are not rare; many individuals encounter extremist stories at moments when they crave belonging, clarity or divine affirmation. Exploring this vulnerable juncture, where faith offers comfort and fear offers an entrance, helps clarify the psychological appeal of religious extremism.
Read More: The Psychology behind faith
The Vulnerable Mind
Crises, whether personal, social or economic, disturb people’s sense of stability. Such disturbances typically render individuals uncertain about themselves, which can be described as a crisis between themselves and their futures (Hogg, 2014). In response to uncertainty, an individual seeks order and structure. People are drawn to groups based on rules or beliefs, as they provide clarity, direction and a sense of belonging.
Uncertainty-Identity Theory states that an unexpected event, such as being laid off from work, being rejected, or political unrest, can create an uncertain state or process of uncertainty about one’s identity (Hogg, 2014). In attempts to restore stability, individuals will be drawn to groups or organisations that have a strong identity and establish clear boundaries of acceptable behaviour.
Research shows that reducing anxiety and restoring control is a major motivator during a crisis. When facing an overwhelming experience, people also feel an increased “need for closure”, a preference for categorical answers in an ocean of uncertainty (McGregor et al., 2015; Kruglanski & Webster, 1996). Extremist groups fulfil this desire by providing knowledgeable leaders, reliable information and tight-knit communities, all of which provide safety, predictability and social obligation (Trip et al., 2019).
The Search for Meaning and Significance
A second major driver of extremism is the human need to feel that one’s life matters. Significance Quest Theory suggests that radicalisation often begins when people experience a loss of value through failure, humiliation, rejection or social instability (Kruglanski et al., 2017). Feelings of being “small” or invisible create a desire to regain importance. Research shows that crises intensify this search for meaning. Social exclusion, discrimination and chronic disrespect increase support for radical ideas because these ideas promise dignity, purpose and a valued identity (Pfundmair et al., 2024). For some, extremist movements act like “redemption stories,” turning personal suffering into part of a larger moral struggle. Extreme groups strengthen this pull by offering simple, powerful narratives:
- You are chosen.
- You matter to a higher cause.
- Your actions have moral weight.
These commitments and identities help restore a sense of purpose and emotional significance in the identity (McGregor et al., 2015). Taking some action (e.g., rituals, missions, or acts of resistance) can be energising and provide greater emotional significance (McGregor et al., 2015). For individuals who may be more vulnerable, this engagement can help restore positive emotional well-being.
How Social Exclusion Shapes Radicalisation
In addition to creating uncertainty, social exclusion (e.g., rejection, isolation or marginalisation) develops the psychological conditions in which extreme persuasion becomes even more attractive. To that effect, exclusion threatens the three fundamental or basic needs in belonging, control, meaning and self-esteem (Williams, 2009).
Nonetheless, preliminary research has found that individuals who are isolated or carry a negative self-concept more strongly endorse extreme forms of acting, particularly regarding how far they are willing to “fight and die” for a group (Hamid et al., 2019), or simply endorse acts of political violence (Pfundmair et al., 2015). Additionally, recent empirical reports in the psychological literature provide evidence of an apparent pattern of socially isolated individuals among many lone-actor extremists and violent actors (Gill et al., 2014).
Read More: How Does Self-Concept Influence Regret After Oversharing?
Three processes explain this effect
- Loss of Significance: Although an aspect of humiliation and marginalisation elevates awareness and is perceived as meaningful to restore self-worth (Kruglanski et al., 2014), discriminated groups are led to be more attracted to ideologies that present opportunities to regain dignity and a sense of justice (Doosje et al., 2013).
- Loss of Control and Certainty: Exclusion increases feelings of unpredictability and confusion about identity. Groups with strong boundaries can help alleviate this uncertainty by providing rules and a stable identity (Hogg, 2014).
- Need for Belonging: After rejection, people become more open to groups that offer immediate acceptance. Experiments show that excluded individuals are more willing to support even extreme groups if they provide belonging (Pfundmair et al., 2015).
Read More: Rejection Does Not Mean the End of Life
Why Simple Thinking Feels Safe
People turn the favour of cognitive shortcuts (quick ways of thinking that help simplify the world) when the world feels disorganised. Shortcuts like this need to bring extreme possibilities closer to appeal, as they decrease the complexity of situations.
- Stereotypes as Filters: They use stereotypes to make quick decisions, but they reinforce extreme beliefs because they only rely on confirming information (Fiske & Taylor, 2013).
- Us vs. Them Thinking: Extremist ideologies refer to a literal division of the world into categories of good vs. evil, friend vs. foe. This type of binary/non-binary thinking invites reduction of uncertainty or ambiguity while it lowers worried psychological discomfort during uncertain times (Borum, 2011).
- Need for Quick Answers: People who like cognitive closure tend to prefer groups, organisations that have strong leaders, strict rules and no room for disagreement (Kruglanski et al., 2014). This is even more amplified during times of exclusion or a crisis (Doosje et al., 2013).
Fear, Shame and Need for Control
Fear, shame and trauma lead to emotional vulnerability. These feelings make certain people feel a break in their dignity and safety, and this rigid ideology feels protective. Fear and anxiety put the inhibition systems of our brains into motion, which creates upset (Grey & McNaughton, 2000). People who report high anxiety often gravitate toward groups that deliver order or certainty (Hogg, 2014). Trauma, especially from violence or conflict, strongly predicts later support for political aggression (Canetti et al., 2010).
Shame and humiliation also push individuals toward ideologies that promise restored dignity. Experiencing humiliated feelings can amplify commitments to extreme beliefs because those beliefs have a foundation in moral value, whereas extremist or radical beliefs also may function as a defence against a precarious sense of self-worth (Kruglanski et al., 2009).
Losing control intensifies all of these effects. Individuals often yearn to reconcile ambiguity and uncertainty through belief systems that provide external order and strong authorities over the believer (Kay & Eibach, 2013). Authoritarian or extremist groups offer especially attractive alternatives in periods of uncertainty or panic.
Read More: Feeling Shame Is Not Good for Your Mental Health?
When Faith Becomes Fire
Religious commitment can often be comforting, provide identity, and a moral compass. However, under certain emotional and situational conditions, that commitment can become rigid in the form of extreme belief or behaviour—reflective of a certain type of zealotry marked by rigid conviction, intolerance for disagreement, and, in some extreme circumstances, endorsement of violence. Literature indicates this slow build-up of anxiety is due to the accumulation of emotional vulnerability, strong storylines, and highly demanding physical structures.
Read More: Religious Gaslighting: How Spiritual Abuse Manipulates Faith and How Survivors Heal
1. Emotional Vulnerability
Adversity, failures, social rejection or a hint of mortality can all trigger an intense by experience form of self-uncertainty and trigger the brain anxiety system (Grey & McNaughton, 2000). When people feel inadequate or overcome, they often search for groups that provide a steadfast identity. And define rules for belonging (Hogg, 2014).
Extreme religious groups also trigger reactive approach motivation—a sense of goal-driven energy that temporarily reduces anxiety and feels rewarding (McGregor et al., 2010). For individuals who feel humiliated or devalued, these groups offer a way to restore personal significance through “heroic” or morally framed action (Kruglanski et al., 2009). People with fragile identities are especially drawn to such certainty (Kruglanski et al., 2014).
Read More: Why Midlife Calls for the Search for Religious Purpose
2. Ideological Narratives
Extremist groups need to establish moral meaning through religious and mythological stories and symbols that effectively construct these value systems.
- Redemption narratives promise moral innocence, change, or cleansing for the guilty or the suffering (Dawson & Amarasingam, 2017).
- Cosmic conflict positions the world as a struggle between good and evil, casting adherents as moral soldiers (Atran, 2010).
- Sacred values (i.e. non-negotiable values tied to the greater good) increase the likelihood of individuals defending those values—including through violent means (Ginges et al., 2009).
- Additionally, unverifiable supernatural claims increase certainty because the content cannot be disproven using an empirical process (Sageman, 2014).
These narratives attribute the emotional burden of distress and uncertainty to a purpose and represent a clear moral structure in distressing situations.
Read More: The Science and Spirituality of Chanting: Boosting Mind, Body, and Emotions
3. Group Structure
Often, extremist religious associations are constructed to bolster loyalty and collective action.
- High-cost commitment, such as rules, sacrifices, or outside behaviour that distances adherents from mainstream society or peers, is used to eliminate casual participants and reinforce commitment among those willing to continue their participation (Iannaccone, 1994).
- Joint production, such as rhythms of service (welfare services, education, or making adjustments while ensuring care to move in a desired direction), creates trusted and combined coordination within an extremist group, which may make violent planning easier (Berman & Laitin, 2008).
- Violent action tends to manifest as a strategy when competing groups contest power politically or under the condition of state repression (Toft, 2007).
In these systems, loyalty and obedience become not only social obligations but moral duties, which can perpetuate extremism.
Read More: Psychology Behind Loyalty
Breaking the Cycle
To deter extremism means to reduce the emotional, social and cognitive vulnerability that extremists target. Research is focused on three major tasks: prevention, disruption, and re-inclusion.
1. Prevention: Reducing Exclusion
Creating inclusive contexts is critical, as exclusion is one of the most solid predictors of radicalisation. Institutions can actively work against discrimination and neglect policies and practices that drive discrimination towards, especially for individuals who feel excluded already, since exclusion does little for belonging and more for aggrievement (Richman & Leary, 2009).
Supportive institutional communications strengthen psychological well-being and diminish defensiveness (Abdollahi et al., 2022). In schools, multicultural education promotes or may even increase a sense of belonging for marginalised students (Banks, 2008). At a smaller level, mindfulness can weaken the intensity of interpersonal ostracism by making the person more cognizant of others in public (Nezlek et al., 2015).
2. Disruption: Breaking the Link Between Exclusion and Extremism
One cannot change the past and guarantee that no one will ever experience ostracism in the future. But taking steps to alleviate the distress and associated consequences of such experiences is essential. Techniques, such as trying to utilise mindfulness, distraction, and/or self-affirmation practices, have been shown to help individuals recover from rejection and stay away from the defences or rumination process (Creswell et al., 2005). As an example, for the religious, prayer is one way to lessen the emotional impact of being rejected.
In addition, young people who face what is known as social distancing, or social pain as a result of rejection, can engage in simple “social surrogates” such as looking at pictures of a loved one, or holding a teddy bear, and they can experience reduced levels of social pain and therefore be impacted less by social distancing (Gardner et al., 2005).
Educational initiatives, such as Rational Emotive Behavioural Education (REBE), have promise for decreasing rigid beliefs. Therefore, uncertainty intolerance may support extreme views (Ellis, 1994; Kruglanski et al., 2014). Dealing with known criminogenic factors (low self-control or moral disengagement, for example) may reduce risk as well (Horgan, 2017).
Read More: Incantations Vs. Affirmations: The Power of Words in Shaping Beliefs
3. De-Radicalisation and Re-Inclusion
Effective deradicalisation seeks to reestablish belongingness, reconstruct identity and address more basic needs (work, education, family) (Barrett, 2020). Typically, compassion and acceptance are the strongest protective factors, as they return the same psychological needs that extremist organisations provided for an individual (Beevor, 2019).
Approaches with former Tamil Tiger members demonstrated that restoring personal meaning is a key to sustainable disengagement (Kruglanski et al., 2019). Establishing a non-violent orientation within an existing social support network can also lessen risk for recidivism (Bowes & McGinn, 2022). Practically, negative, punitive, or unjust practices do potentially enhance radicalisation by inflating grievances and perceptions of injustice (Dugas & Kruglanski, 2014).
Conclusion
Religion-based extremism typically does not initiate with ideology alone, but within the state of uncertainty, exclusion, loneliness, and possibly searching for purpose. Extremist narratives are attractive to people because they offer clarity, belongingness, and purpose when a person is in a vulnerable context and seeking a place of belonging. Reduced exclusion, enhanced resilience, and reasonable ultimatums to help restore belonging will impede the trajectory leading into that extremist frame of reference.
References +
Berman, E. (2005). Hamas, Taliban, and the Jewish Underground: An economist’s view of radical religious militias (NBER Working Paper No. 10004). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w10004
Borum, R. (2011). Radicalisation into violent extremism I: A review of social science theories. Journal of Strategic Security, 4(4), 7–36.
Coid, J. W., Bhui, K., MacManus, D., Kallis, C., Bebbington, P., & Ullrich, S. (2016). Extremism, religion and psychiatric morbidity. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 209(6), 491–496. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.116.186577
de Graaf, B. A., Wanmaker, S., & Peterse, B. (2021). Religious radicalisation: Social appraisals and finding meaning. Religion, Brain & Behaviour, 11(3), 232–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.religion.2021.02.004
Hogg, M. A. (2014). From uncertainty to extremism: Social categorisation and identity processes. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(5), 338–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414540168
Jasko, K., Webber, D., Kruglanski, A. W., Gelfand, M. J., & Hettiarachchi, M. (2017). The quest for significance and violent extremism: The case of domestic radicalisation. Political Psychology, 38(6), 815–831. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12376
Kruglanski, A. W., Chernikova, M., Jasko, K., Dugas, M., & Webber, D. (2017). The psychology of radicalisation and deradicalisation: How significance quest impacts violent extremism. Advances in Political Psychology, 38, 69–93.
McGregor, I., Prentice, M., & Nash, K. (2015). Motivation for aggressive religious radicalisation: Goal regulation and identity processes. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1– 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01372
Pfundmair, M., Graupmann, V., Frey, D., Goetz, T., & Jonas, E. (2024). How social exclusion makes radicalism flourish: A review. Journal of Social Issues, 80(1), 190– 209.
Trip, S., Bora, C., & Bucur, A. (2019). Psychological mechanisms involved in radicalisation and extremism. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00389
United Nations Development Programme. (2016). Preventing violent extremism through inclusive development and the promotion of tolerance. UNDP Policy Brief.
Wolfowicz, M., Litmanovitz, Y., Weisburd, D., & Hasisi, B. (2021). Cognitive and behavioural radicalisation: A systematic review of the scientific literature. Terrorism and Political Violence, 33(6), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/09546553.2019.1668799
