We study political engagement as a fundamentally social and interdependent process, where perceptions of others’ actions and norms shape motivation to get involved. Our work shows that normative contexts determine whether political actors mobilize or alienate, and how support emerges within polarized environments.
research
What motivates people to act for social change?
We treat social and political engagement as a goal-directed process, investigating how people’s perceptions of importance and expectancy of the cause as well as the relations between their goals shape their willingness to act for political causes—even in the face of likely failure.
How do people pursue social change?
We investigate why the pursuit of social and political change sometimes leads to peaceful activism and other times to violence, showing that experiences threatening personal worth can motivate radicalization, but that ideology and social context determine whether this motivation is expressed constructively or destructively.
How do people form and change their beliefs?
We study how individuals process information and update or protect their beliefs across diverse domains, from political ideology to aesthetic judgment.
Commitment to political goals
What motivates people to act for social change?
We study political engagement from a motivational perspective [1]. In this view, political behavior is conceptualized as a means to an end (or multiple ends) and follows the same motivational principles as non-political behavior. In other words, individuals donate money, attend protests, vote, or even join extremist groups in pursuit of outcomes they consider valuable and attainable.
Our research investigates which psychological needs drive such engagement and how perceptions of value and expectancy influence commitment to political goals. We have shown that fulfilling needs for personal significance and meaning through political participation reinforces dedication to a cause [2]. Because people typically pursue multiple goals simultaneously, we also examine how political and non-political goals interact, and how different goal structures relate to both short- and long-term forms of engagement [3].
Recently, we’ve been exploring the role of political expectancy—the perceived likelihood that one’s actions will bring about desired change. While people usually avoid investing effort in activities with low chances of success, this pattern often breaks down in the political domain, where people are willing to endure failure for a cause. We study these phenomena in the context of voting decisions, activism and perceptions of historical successes vs. defeats.
Read more:
- Jasko, K. (2023). Political behavior from the perspective of the goal systems theory. In: Kruglanski, A. Fishbach, & C. Kopetz (Eds.), Goal systems theory: Psychological processes and applications (pp. 257-279). Oxford University Press.
- Grzymala-Moszczynska, J., Coenen, A.-C., Jasko, K., Gore-Gorszewska, G., Kunst, J., Kalwak, W. (2025). “The whole thing is a juggling act”: Qualitative exploration of goal systems among activists and nonactivists. Journal of Social and Political Psychology. Advance online publication.
- Jasko, K., Szastok, M., Grzymala-Moszczynska, J., Maj, M., Kruglanski, A. (2019). Rebel with a cause: Personal significance from political activism predicts willingness to self-sacrifice. Journal of Social Issues, 75, 314-349.
Choice of peaceful vs. violent means
How do people pursue social change?
People use various means to pursue social or political change. The key question is why some rely on moderate actions while others resort to more extreme measures in pursuit of the same goals. Our research addresses this question through the lens of the quest for significance theory, which posits that people are especially prone to radicalization when their sense of personal worth or respect is undermined by experiences such as humiliation, rejection, or injustice [1, 2]. In such moments, devotion to a political cause can serve as a means of restoring self-worth and social standing. Our studies provide empirical support for this framework. Analyses of a unique dataset of political extremists showed that experiences of personal failure and social rejection predicted stronger involvement in political violence [3]. Another study revealed that adolescents exposed to peer victimization were more likely to engage in radical political action, highlighting the vulnerability of this developmental stage [4].
Yet, despite the universality of the need for significance, violent extremism remains rare. To understand this, we examine factors that channel the same motivational forces toward peaceful or destructive outcomes. One line of work demonstrates that ideological orientation matters: left-wing radicals are generally less violent than right-wing and Islamist extremists [5]. Another shows that significance needs predict violent tendencies most strongly in radicalized social contexts, underscoring the crucial role of normative environments [6].
Taken together, this research reveals how universal psychological needs interact with ideology and social context to shape different pathways to political engagement—explaining why the pursuit of meaning and purpose can sometimes inspire courageous activism, and other times lead to violence.
Read more:
- Jasko, K., LaFree, G., & Kruglanski, A. (2017). Quest for significance and violent extremism: The case of domestic radicalization. Political Psychology, 38, 815-831.
- Miklikowska, M., Jasko, K., & Kurdnac, A. (2023). The making of a radical: The role of peer harassment in youth political radicalism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 49(3), 477-492.
- Kruglanski, A.W., Jasko, K., Webber, D., Chernikova, M., & Molinario, E. (2018). The making of violent extremists. Review of General Psychology, 22(1), 107-120.
- Jasko, K., LaFree, G., Piazza, J., & Becker, M. H. (2022). A comparison of political violence by left-wing, right-wing, and Islamist extremists in the United States and the world. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(30), e2122593119.
- Jasko, K., Webber, D., & Kruglanski, A.W. (2020). Political extremism. In: van Lange, P., Higgins, T., Kruglanski, A.W., (Eds.) Social psychology. Handbook of basic principles.
- Jasko, K., Webber, D., Kruglanski, A.W., Gelfand, M., Taufiqurrohman, M.,Hettiarachchi, M., & Gunaratna, R. (2020). Social context moderates the effects of quest for significance on violent extremism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 118(6), 1165–1187.
Social context
How does social context change political behavior?
Our approach to social and political engagement is grounded in a general motivational framework that has typically been studied with regard to individual goals. However, we recognize the unique aspects of political behavior, specifically the high degree of goal interdependence. Goals such as fighting climate change, reducing economic inequalities or changing the political system are unattainable without social coordination and willingness to take joint action. These interdependencies can have a number of motivational consequences.
First, perceptions of how others behave and whether they support the cause can shape beliefs about the chances of success for collective actions, inform the choice of specific means, and influence whether a cause is seen as more or less important. In our recent work, we demonstrate how different types of norms—and their consistent or inconsistent combinations—affect willingness to participate in political action [1].
Second, because political goals involve interdependence, social reactions to political actors become crucial: in most cases they will not be able to bring about social change unless they convince others to support their ideas. While activism can inspire and mobilize, it can also backfire, alienating potential sympathizers or energizing opponents. Understanding the mechanisms behind both intended and unintended effects of political action is therefore essential. Our current projects address this gap by comparing responses to extreme versus moderate politicians [2] and studying reactions to activists. In short, we show that compared to moderates, extreme politicians attract stronger support from like-minded individuals but also provoke stronger opposition from those on the other side. Importantly, the broader normative context plays a decisive role, suggesting that polarization and the apparent advantages of extremists are not inevitable.
Read more:
- Kuhny, A., Jasko, K. (preprint). From Goal Approval to Social Engagement: How Norms Motivate Collective Action. https://osf.io/b2wea
- Potoczek, A., Jasko, K. (preprint). Extreme Political Candidates Mobilize Supporters (and Opponents) More than Moderates Particularly in a Polarized Society. https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/b8xnu_v1
- Potoczek, A., Bukowski, M., de Lemus, S., Jimenez Moya, G., López, Á. R., & Jasko, K. (2023). Walk this way: Ingroup norms determine voting intentions for those who lack sociopolitical control. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 49(5), 692–708.
- Jasko, K., Webber, D., Kruglanski, A.W., Gelfand, M., Taufiqurrohman, M., Hettiarachchi, M., & Gunaratna, R. (2020). Social context moderates the effects of quest for significance on violent extremism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 118(6), 1165–1187.
Belief change
How do people form and change their beliefs?
To understand how people act—in politics and beyond—it is essential to understand how they form and change beliefs.. To address this question, we have conducted both empirical studies and theoretical work on epistemic motivation. We used a model of epistemic motivation that distinguishes between two basic forms – directional and non-directional – to account for different reactions to new information, such as actively seeking or avoiding it, updating beliefs in light of new evidence, or confirming previously held views [1,2]. More recently, we have applied this framework to develop an alternative conceptualization of motivated ignorance [3], to describe the dimensions underlying ideological beliefs [4], and to explain how people form aesthetic judgments [5].
- Kruglanski, A.W., Jasko, K., & Friston, K. (2020). All thinking is “wishful” thinking. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 24, 413-424.
- Kruglanski, A., Jasko, K., Milyavsky, M., Chernikova, M., Webber, D., Pierro, A., & di Santo, D. (2018). Cognitive consistency theory in social psychology: A paradigm reconsidered. Psychological Inquiry, 29(2), 45-59.
- Czarnek, G., Jasko, K., Kruglanski, A. (2025). Blissful ignorance: A motivated cognition perspective on information avoidance. Current Opinion in Psychology, 102139.
- Czarnek, G., Jasko, K., Dudek, I., Piotrowska, M. (preprint). Beyond Content: Psychological Structure of Political Beliefs. https://osf.io/z3cyr
- Yoo, J., Jasko, K., & Winkielman, P. (2024). Fluency, prediction, and motivation: How processing dynamics, expectations, and epistemic goals shape aesthetic judgments. Philosophical Transactions B, 379: 20230326.
