The path to teen radicalization isn’t as straight as people think

By Virginie Soffer Jun 5th, 2026

Media requests

In 5 seconds A study of more than 500 young Montrealers finds that adolescents' attitudes toward political violence are fluid and part of an exploratory phase in their development.

Traditional models of radicalization often describe a linear progression.
Photo : Getty

Amid growing public concern about the radicalization of young people, there is a widespread misconception that radicalization logically and inevitably progresses to violence.

It is often assumed that once exposed to certain ideas, teenagers latch on to them and gradually move on to increasingly extreme views.

However, a new study led by Diana Miconi, a professor in the Faculty of Education at Université de Montréal, paints a more complicated picture.

She and her team surveyed 574 students, all about 15 years old, at six high schools in metropolitan Montreal and found their attitudes toward violence and social engagement shift quickly, generally marking an exploratory phase in their development.

No linear progession

Classical models of radicalization typically describe a linear progression that begins with subscribing to an ideology, then becoming an activist, then engaging in violence when democratic methods fail. But the available data do not confirm this pattern.

“There is no empirical evidence that this process is consistent for everyone,” Miconi said. Some young people may come to support violence without ever having been activists, while the vast majority of socially engaged youth never embrace violence.

To untangle this complex web, the research team took a comprehensive approach, rather than focusing on isolated variable, to analyze how teenagers’ attitudes toward violent and nonviolent radicalization evolve.

Through two surveys spaced one year apart, in 2023 and 2024, the researchers identified six distinct profiles among the subjects who filled out both questionnaires.

The largest group, about 39 per cent of the students, supported nonviolent forms of engagement, such as signing petitions or participating in demonstrations. “This is a good sign, because these young people believe in democratic methods,” Miconi said.

At the other extreme, about 12 per cent supported violence without endorsing nonviolent activism.

Between these two poles, 15 per cent believed violence and nonviolence can coexist as means of action, while about 13 per cent were generally disengaged from these issues.

Diana Miconi, professor in the Department of Educational Psychology and Adult Education at Université de Montréal
Photo : Julie Durocher

Attitudes are unstable

The researchers found that the majority of the subjects changed profiles during the year between the two surveys. “Many more young people changed their profile than stayed the same,” Miconi said. “They are in an exploratory phase.”

The good news is that the teens who were most favourable to violence were the most likely to change their minds. Of those initially classified as pro-violence, only about 13 per cent were still in the same category a year later. Most shifted toward less violent positions, often toward nonviolent engagement or disengagement.

On the other hand, nonviolent profiles appear to be more stable over time. “Those who were nonviolent tended, for the most part, to stay that way,” Miconi said. These results suggest that for many adolescents, attitudes toward violence are not fixed and should not be immediately pathologized.

Other factors involved

The study also investigated the factors that influence young people’s trajectories. Two factors stand out.

First, experiencing discrimination was associated with a higher likelihood of remaining in a pro-violence profile. “Young people who experience more discrimination are more likely to remain in these profiles,” Miconi said.

Secondly, a positive school experience appears to play a protective role: students who were academically successful were more likely to stay in nonviolent engagement profiles.

Engaged youth were more concerned about global issues, such as international conflicts and the environment, regardless of their attitudes towards violence. “Young people are sensitive to injustice, even at the global level,” Miconi said.

'An ideological smorgasbord'

The study also found changing forms of radicalism among teenagers.

“Young people are choosing from an ideological smorgasbord,” Miconi said. Exposed to a wide variety of content, largely online, they construct hybrid worldviews without necessarily embracing organized movements.

More alarmingly, a form of nihilistic violence distinct from traditional types of radicalization is emerging.

“For these teens, the goal isn’t really social change,” Miconi said. “This is a worldview in which humans are seen as fundamentally evil. Violence becomes an end in itself and is seen as cool.

"These young people spend their time watching online videos containing extreme violence. They just want to hasten the end of the world, because there’s nothing else to be done.”

Caution is urged

These findings need to be interpreted with caution.

“We’re talking about attitudes, not behaviours,” Miconi said. Supporting violence on a questionnaire doesn’t mean a teenager will act on it. The purpose of the study, she said, was to examine attitudes and a cultural climate, not to predict individual behaviour.

A risk assessment based on opinions expressed at a specific point in time is of limited value, she added. “We need a developmental approach, with follow-up over time."

Miconi also warns against moralizing or repressive approaches.

“Condemnation or an overly security-focused approach can increase frustration and division,” she said. Instead, she advocates dialogue and understanding: “We must try to understand what lies behind young people’s opinions: their experiences, their emotions, their perception of injustice.”

In a time of international crises, social tensions and constant exposure to sometimes violent content, it is natural for adolescents to explore different ideas, including some that are disturbing, she noted.

“It’s quite normal for them to question things and test boundaries."

The response from adults—whether parents, teachers or social workers—shouldn’t be to condemn this exploration, she added, but to support young people and help them develop critical thinking skills and express their concerns through democratic means.

By highlighting the fluidity of adolescent attitudes, the study offers a new perspective, Miconi believes.

Rather than viewing radicalism as a sure path toward violence, it frames it as a stage—often transitional—in young people’s development in a fast-changing world.

Media requests