“Alarming Figures: A Framing Experiment on the Effect of Information about Extremist Political Violence on Radical Attitudes” by Nina Fadarkhan Osenbrügge (University of Mannheim), July 7, 18:00.

7月7日実証政治学ワークショップ/ Workshop Announcement: July 7, 18:00-

マンハイム大学のNina Fadarkhan Osenbrügge氏をお迎えし、“Alarming Figures: A Framing Experiment on the Effect of Information about Extremist Political Violence on Radical Attitudes”と題して実証政治学ワークショップを開催します。討論者としてカトリック・ド・リール大学のMarta Gallina准教授も登壇予定です。
どなたでもご参加いただけます。事前登録は不要です。ぜひご参加下さい。
We are very pleased to host Doctoral Candidate Nina Fadarkhan Osenbrügge (University of Mannheim) for a special talk with the title “Alarming Figures: A Framing Experiment on the Effect of Information about Extremist Political Violence on Radical Attitudes”.  Associate Professor Marta Gallina (Catholic University of Lille) will also be joining as a panelist.
Pre-registration is not required. We look forward to your participation.

日時：2026年7月7日（火）18:00 pm – 19:00 pm
Date and Time: Tuesday, July 7, 2026, 18:00 pm – 19:00 pm

場所：3号館406
Venue：Room 406, Building 3, Waseda Campus, Waseda University

言語Language：英語English

要旨Abstract： 
This paper investigates how exposure to extremist political violence shapes ideological attitudes and punitive responses across different ideological groups. Drawing on Social Identity Theory and Intergroup Threat Theory, it examines whether individuals react to extremist threats by becoming more radical themselves or by evaluating such violence through the lens of group identity. The study employs a vignette-based survey experiment conducted in Germany, France, Greece, and Hungary (N = 8,420), in which respondents were randomly exposed to information about extremist violence framed as left-wing, right-wing, or religiously motivated. The findings provide little evidence that exposure to extremist violence directly increases radical attitudes, either among moderates or already radical individuals. Instead, ideological orientations remain largely stable in the short term. However, strong and consistent patterns emerge in the evaluation of extremist crimes. Both left- and right-wing radicals display clear in-group favoritism, judging violence committed by ideological allies more leniently than that committed by out-groups. Among non-radicals, religiously motivated violence is punished more harshly than other forms of extremism. These results suggest that perceived threat primarily influences moral evaluations rather than ideological positions. Exposure to extremist violence activates identity-based biases that shape how individuals assign blame and punishment. While this does not immediately intensify radical attitudes, it may reinforce asymmetric perceptions between groups and contribute to longer-term polarization and intergroup tension.

Contact： 日野愛郎（早稲田大学） Airo Hino (Waseda University) [email protected]