Adolescent support for political violence in conservative White families: the roles of parental anxiety and other risk factors

Adolescent support for political violence in conservative White families: the roles of parental anxiety and other risk factors | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Adolescent support for political violence in conservative White families: the roles of parental anxiety and other risk factors Melinda Westfall, Deborah Laible, Sarah Borowski, Danming An, and 5 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-9382820/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background Violent, far-right ideologies centered around White American identity have become increasingly normalized in mainstream U.S. conservative politics in recent years. As a result, these ideas may become increasingly relevant to political socialization in conservative White families, placing White adolescents at risk for violent political radicalization. Integrating past findings and theoretical frameworks, the present study explored direct and indirect connections between adolescent support for violent extremism, parental anxiety, and three potential risk factors: parental radicalization, parental psychological control, and adolescent loneliness. Method 413 politically conservative White parents and their adolescent children ( M age = 15.28, SD = 1.41, 45.5% female) were recruited as dyads to complete a cross-sectional online survey. Parents and adolescents separately reported their support for the use of political violence. Additionally, parents completed a measure of anxiety and adolescents completed measures of perceived parental psychological control and loneliness. Results Analysis of the hypothesized structural equation model demonstrated significant direct pathways from parental anxiety to parental radicalization and psychological control. Additionally, we found five indirect pathways from parental anxiety to adolescent radicalization via the risk factors of parental radicalization, psychological control, and adolescent loneliness. Implications : These findings provide insight into the complex dyadic processes that may be linked to support for extremist violence and call for greater focus on family relational dynamics as risk factors for radicalization among White American youth. political violence adolescence parenting loneliness psychological control anxiety Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Introduction Adolescents growing up in the United States have witnessed rising political polarization and partisan animosity throughout the past decade (Fasching et al., 2024). Instances such as the January 6th insurrection, assassination attempts against Donald Trump during the 2024 presidential election, and the shooting of two Minnesota Democratic lawmakers in June 2025 have positioned violence as a pervasive component of the national political atmosphere (Singam, 2025; U.S. Department of Justice, 2025). In tandem with this, national survey results suggest that 34% of American adults believe that the use of political violence can be justified (Balz et al., 2022). In the U.S., far-right ideologies that endorse the use of violence often target psychological vulnerabilities like feelings of loneliness or anxiety as a means of radicalization (Reyna et al., 2022; Borum, 2014). As a critical period for the development of political belief systems and identity (Rekker et al., 2017), understanding individual and family-level risk factors for violent radicalization in adolescence may be integral to preventing future incidents of right-wing political violence. The present study sought to integrate theoretical perspectives on parenting and political radicalization to investigate the relation between parental anxiety and a variety of factors linked to adolescent political extremism in conservative White American families. Many instances of political violence and domestic terrorism in recent U.S. history can be traced back to the growing popularity of right-wing populism and White racial identitarianism in conservative politics (Mondon & Winter, 2020a). Since the 2016 presidential election, far-right narratives have gained increasing dissemination through mainstream conservative media sources to their national viewerbase (Brown & Mondon, 2026; Thompson & Sengul, 2025). These narratives frequently highlight the victimization of White Americans at the hands of an elite liberal class or other political outgroups (Mondon & Winter, 2020b) and emphasize the urgent need to defend traditional White American cultural identity, including by violent means (Armaly et al., 2022; Haner et al., 2025). Perceived victimhood, grievance narratives, and White racial identitarianism have entrenched ties to violent extremism (Jensen et al., 2020; Armaly & Enders, 2024) and support for the use of political violence among “MAGA” Republicans poses a growing problem for the future of American democracy (Wintemute et al., 2025a). Although the majority likely do not endorse using violence as a means of political action (Wintemute et al., 2025b), White conservatives may currently be at elevated risk of exposure to extremist beliefs linked to political violence. As political violence gains normalization in conservative politics (Mondon & Winter, 2020a; Brown & Mondon, 2026), these ideas may also become increasingly integrated into the political socialization of adolescents in conservative White families (Dunn et al., 2022). Despite this, empirical work studying the political socialization practices of conservative White adults has been limited. Theoretical framework: risk factors for radicalization In line with ecological theories of development (Bronfenbrenner, 1994), radicalization occurs not only in the context of the national political climate, but also through proximal family influence (Beelmann, 2020; Zych & Nasaescu, 2022; Wolfowicz et al., 2021). The social-developmental model of radicalization characterizes political radicalization as a three-stage process in which a combination of risk and protective factors at the social, individual, and societal levels shape the likelihood of being radicalized by future events or crises (Beelmann, 2020). Under this framework, exposure to an imbalanced mix of risk and protective factors throughout childhood and adolescence compounds to create the psychological preconditions for extremist radicalization (Beelmann, 2020). As a result, family context may be an especially important consideration in the origins of radicalization due to its foundational ties to socialization and developmental processes related to social functioning, self-perceptions, and moral beliefs (Grusec, 2011). In particular, the influence wielded by parents may inform radicalization during adolescence and have enduring effects on political beliefs into adulthood (Zych & Nasaescu, 2022; Neundorf et al., 2013). Using a dyadic, cross-sectional design, the present study explored direct and indirect connections between parental anxiety, adolescent support for violent extremism, and three potential risk factors: parental radicalization, parental psychological control, and adolescent loneliness. Previous research on radicalization has identified a number of family-related risk and protective factors, including parent extremism (Amit & Al Kafy, 2022; Zych & Nasaescu, 2022). In line with social learning theories, exposure to parents with extreme beliefs may have harmful effects on adolescent radicalization via direct value and belief transmission (Harpviken, 2020; Post, 2004). Parents provide some of adolescents’ earliest models for political engagement (Cicognani et al., 2012) and the norms parents communicate about intergroup animosity and the acceptability of violence may influence adolescents’ developing political beliefs (Borum, 2025; Međedović & Petrović, 2021). As a foundational source for children's moral and cultural values, parents also play an important role in communicating personal values and shaping adolescent attitudes that inform radicalization (Lösel et al., 2020; Beelmann, 2020), including attitudes towards violence and rule of law (Wolfe et al., 2017). Outside of parental beliefs, general parenting behavior may be another social-level risk factor for youth radicalization (Lösel et al., 2018). Regarding protective effects, supportive parenting, positive parent-adolescent relationship quality, and parental involvement may decrease the likelihood of extremist radicalization and foster resilience to radicalizing influences (Zych & Nasaescu, 2022). In contrast, harsh and coercive parenting behavior and frequent conflicts between parents and adolescents in daily life may exacerbate adolescent mental health and vulnerability to radicalization (Lösel et al., 2018; Wolfowicz et al., 2021; Kuhn, 2004). Adolescents with unsupportive or overly-controlling parents may be at greater risk for antisocial behaviors and the use of violence (Álvarez-García et al., 2016). In turn, adolescents and young adults belonging to violent extremist political groups often report lacking adequate systems of family support and care (Schils & Verhage, 2017). Deficits in socioemotional abilities (e.g., empathy, perspective taking) caused by unempathetic and insensitive parenting may also make it more difficult for adolescents to understand and care about the experiences of others (Lösel et al., 2007; Hazelbaker et al., 2022). These deficits may in turn place adolescents at greater risk for extremist radicalization by narratives that justify the use of violence by disregarding the humanity and emotional states of political outgroups (Feddes et al., 2015; Emmelkamp et al., 2020). At the individual level, excessive feelings of loneliness may also heighten adolescent vulnerability to radicalization (Opozda-Suder et al., 2025; Beelmann, 2020). Loneliness describes the feelings of distress or discomfort with the discrepancy between one’s actual and desired social relationships (Peplau & Perlman, 1982) and is closely related to the constructs of social isolation, social alienation, and feelings of belonging (Hughes et al., 2004; Seemann, 2022). Social information processing models (Spithoven et al., 2017) suggest that chronic feelings of loneliness may contribute to negative attribution biases that lead to elevated sensitivity to social rejection or exclusion (Maes & Vanhalst, 2025). In turn, extremist narratives often target psychological weaknesses such as loneliness and low self-esteem in order to indoctrinate youth seeking support and connection (Kruglanski et al., 2021; Borum, 2014; 2025). Loneliness may intensify the psychosocial need for belonging and heighten the appeal of social acceptance and positive group identity offered by radicalist movements (Di Cicco et al., 2025). Multicausal frameworks of youth radicalization emphasize the compounding and interconnected effects of many different risk factors in an adolescent’s life (Beelmann, 2020). Concurrent risk factors can have interrelated effects and may be individually linked to other social environmental factors (Wolfowicz et al., 2021). For example, parent extremism, harsh parenting, and adolescent loneliness are three risk factors that also have known associations with parental anxiety (Trip et al., 2019; McCurdy et al., 2022; Mun, 2022). However, research into the link between parental anxiety and adolescent radialization has been extremely limited. In the present study, we sought to identify concurrent associations between parental anxiety, these interrelated risk factors, and adolescent extremism in order to expand our understanding of parent influence on the risk of youth radicalization in conservative White families. Parental anxiety One reason why parental anxiety may hold relevance to adolescent radicalization is its association with radical beliefs and the use of political violence (Trip et al., 2019). The belief that political outgroups pose an existential threat to the ingroup is often at the core of violent extremist narratives (Pauwels & Heylen, 2020). Intensifying anxieties of economic ruin, physical assault, and cultural replacement are the motivation and moral justification for much of the political violence carried out by far-right groups in the U.S. (Salmela & Von Scheve, 2017; Reyna et al., 2022). As a result, groups and individuals who promote these beliefs often capitalize off of the existing anxieties White Americans have about the future by offering an actionable (though violent) political solution (Isom Scott & Andersen, 2020). Many narratives, such as fears about White students being unable to get into college or find jobs due to DEI policies, may be especially salient for White parents worried about the opportunities that will be afforded to their children (Iyer, 2022). As such, experiencing high levels of anxiety may exacerbate conservative White parents’ propensity for extremism, and in turn expose adolescents to these violent belief systems. Beyond its connections to radical beliefs, parental anxiety may also be connected to youth radicalization due to its associations with harsh and negative parenting behaviors (McCurdy et al., 2022; van der Bruggen et al., 2008). Family Systems Theory suggests that because a family operates as an interconnected system in which each member both influences and is influenced by the others (Calatrava et al., 2022), a parent experiencing high levels of anxiety may have repercussions for all other family members (Gavazzi & Lim, 2023). In line with this, research indicates that parents who frequently experience elevated levels of state anxiety may be more likely to engage in restrictive or controlling parenting practices (McCurdy et al., 2022; Segrin et al., 2013). One form of negative parenting is psychological control, characterized by the use of rejection, invalidation, and emotional manipulation by parents towards their children (Barber et al., 2002). These behaviors may be motivated by parents’ anxiety and desire for control over their environment, including the emotional states of their children (Soenens & Vansteenkiste, 2010; McCurdy et al., 2022). As such, highly anxious parents may find it more difficult to regulate their emotional and physiological response to daily stressors (McCurdy et al., 2022), may have more restricted mental resources available to them when interacting with their adolescent children (Schrock & Woodruff-Borden, 2010) and may engage in more controlling and coercive behavior. Furthermore, the associations between parental anxiety, parental radicalization, and harsh parenting behavior may be interconnected. A growing body of work has suggested that parenting behaviors may be tied to parents’ political attitudes (Feinberg et al., 2020; Kerry & Murray, 2018). At their core, many far-right ideologies are grounded in preferences for authoritarian social structures, conformity, and adherence to traditional values and customs (Jost et al., 2018). Restricting expressions of personal feelings may be a means through which parents attempt to instill deference for authority and compliance with rigid rule systems in their adolescent children (Soenens & Vansteenkiste, 2010). Holding radical beliefs supporting the use of violent tactics to achieve political goals may also require parents to regularly minimize the psychological needs and emotional experiences of political outgroups (Schroeder & Epley, 2020), which could have implications for their behavior in authority dynamics like the parent-child relationship. Although the exact mechanisms through which violent political beliefs may affect parental psychological control are currently unknown, the deficits in socioemotional functionality associated with viewing violence as acceptable (Frick & Viding, 2009) suggest that parents may partially transmit radical beliefs through their social behavior and disregard for their children’s autonomy. In addition to its connections with parent-level risk factors for youth radicalization, parental anxiety has also been directly linked to individual-level risk factors like adolescent loneliness (Mun, 2022). Theories of attachment and Belsky’s (1984) Determinants of Parenting Model support the idea that elevated levels of anxiety can interfere with parents’ ability to provide adequate warmth and support to their children (Epkins & Harper, 2016; Schrock & Woodruff-Borden, 2010) and cause parents to be more likely to engage in criticizing or rejecting behavior towards their adolescent children (Crosby Budinger et al., 2013). In turn, parental anxiety has been directly linked to adolescents’ feelings of loneliness (Mun, 2022). Lack of adequate support from parents can also contribute to feelings of alienation and social disconnection in adolescents (Segrin et al., 2013; Hair et al., 2009), both of which are closely tied to the concept of loneliness (Hughes et al., 2004; Seemann, 2022). Parental anxiety has further been linked to a number of parenting factors associated with adolescent loneliness, including low warmth and parent-adolescent conflict (Mounts et al., 2006; Liu et al., 2015). In line with this, past work has identified direct concurrent links between psychological control and adolescent loneliness (Koopmans, 2023). For example, refusal by parents to accept and support the emotional states of their children may contribute to feelings of rejection and loneliness in adolescents (Rowe et al., 2015). Controlling parenting may also foster feelings of distrust in others in adolescents (Rohner & Smith, 2019). In turn, experiences of parental rejection and the lack of modelling adaptive social functioning may inhibit adolescents’ ability to form positive peer relationships, contributing to further experiences of loneliness and social alienation (Wu et al., 2022). In support of this, past findings suggest that parental control may mediate the negative effects of parental anxiety on adolescent internalizing outcomes (Emerson et al., 2019). Loneliness may make adolescents less sensitive to the emotions and well-being of others, leading to an increased propensity for aggression and heightened support for the use of radical political violence (Opozda-Suder et al., 2025). Additionally, lonely adolescents who lack supportive family relationships may not have an adequate social support system to intervene during the radicalization process (Sporer & Buxton, 2024). Therefore, parenting factors that negatively affect parent-child relationship quality (e.g., parental anxiety, use of psychological control) may contribute to individual-level risk factors like loneliness that place youth at greater risk of radicalization (Borum, 2025). The present study The aim of the current study was to investigate adolescent extremism in conservative White families by integrating existing frameworks and exploring potential relationships between parent-level factors and adolescent support for political violence. Based on the theoretical perspectives and literature reviewed above, we investigated direct links between conservative White parents’ anxiety and adolescent support for radical violence, as well as the indirect roles of three risk-factors: parental radicalization, parental psychological control, and adolescent loneliness (Fig. 1 ). In addition to these three single-mediator indirect pathways, we also examined three potential multi-mediator indirect effect pathways from parental anxiety to adolescent radicalization. The first multi-mediator indirect pathway examined accounted for the link between parental radicalization and parental psychological control. The second featured the link between parental psychological control and adolescent loneliness. The final multi-mediator indirect pathway estimated associations between all three risk factor variables, from parental radicalization to parental psychological control, and then to adolescent loneliness. Prior to our analysis, we formulated the following hypotheses: H1. Parental anxiety would be positively associated with parental radicalization, adolescent report of parental psychological control, adolescent loneliness, and adolescent radicalization. H2. Parental radicalization, adolescent report of parental psychological control, and adolescent loneliness would be positively associated with adolescent radicalization. H3. Parent radicalization would be positively directly associated with parental psychological control, and parent psychological control would be positively directly associated with adolescent loneliness. H4. Parental anxiety would have positive indirect effects on adolescent radicalization through its associations with the risk factors of parental radicalization, parental psychological control, and adolescent loneliness. H5. The association between parental anxiety on adolescent radicalization would be indirectly explained by three distinct multi-mediator pathways: the effects of parental radicalization on parental psychological control, the effects of parental psychological control on adolescent loneliness, and the sequential association of all three risk factors. Methods Participants and procedure Data was taken from a broader project assessing risk factors associated with susceptibility to right-wing extremist political beliefs among White adolescents with conservative parents living in the United States. The data used in this study was collected in late December 2024 and early January 2025. The sample contained online survey responses from 413 White American parent-adolescent dyads. All parents included in the final dataset self-described as being politically conservative. Political conservatism was determined using a single item that asked parents to rate their beliefs on a 7-point Likert scale where 1 = “Extremely Liberal”, 4 = “Moderate”, and 7 = “Extremely Conservative." Only parents who selected 5, 6, or 7 were invited to participate. Parents ( N = 413; 65.9% female) reported a median annual household income of $70,000. Adolescents’ ( N = 413) average age was 15.28 years old and 45.5% of adolescents self-reported as female. Two adolescents identified as a gender other than male or female [1] . Although adolescent ages ranged from 12 to 18 years old, the vast majority (86.2%) of adolescents fell within the concentrated age range of 14 to 17 years old. Survey responses were collected using the third-party sampling platform Forthright. Surveys were distributed to parents based on whether parents met the following criteria: English speaking, U.S. resident, White, non-Hispanic, self-identifying as politically conservative, and the parent of an adolescent child between 12 and 18 years old who lives in their household. After consenting to participate in the survey with their adolescent, parents were asked for the age and race of their child. Parents who reported that their adolescent was White and between the ages of 12 and 18 years old were permitted to continue with the survey. The parent-report portion of the survey took approximately 20 minutes to complete. After finishing the parent items, parents were instructed to pass their device to their adolescent child and to leave the room. After assenting to participate, adolescents answered the final portion of the survey which took approximately 15 minutes to complete. Multiple attention checks were included in both portions of the survey and dyads that failed more than one check were excluded from the dataset. Included in the adolescent survey items were questions designed to verify respondent age. Dyads were jointly compensated a total of $10.67 for completion of both the parent and adolescent portions of the survey. This project was approved by the Internal Review Board (IRB) prior to data collection (2252261-8). Measures State anxiety Parents completed the four-item state anxiety subscale of the Mini-DASS (Monteiro et al., 2023). Participants rated items concerning experiences of anxiety over the past week (e.g., “I felt scared without any good reason”) on a four-point Likert scale ranging from 0 = “Did not apply to me at all” to 3 = ”Applied to me very much, or most of the time." Past work has suggested that experiences of transitory, state-level anxiety may be more closely tied to political perceptions than dispositional or trait anxiety (Weinschenk & Smith, 2024). Adapted from the DASS-21 (Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995), this scale has shown acceptable reliability and validity in English-speaking adult samples (Monteiro et al., 2023). Total scores ranged from 0 to 12, with 12 indicating the greatest level of anxiety. Support for political violence Parents and adolescents each separately completed the Radicalist Intentions Scale (RIS; Moskalenko & McCauley, 2009). This four-item scale was designed to capture willingness to engage in illegal or violent political action (“I would continue to support an organization that fights for my group’s political and legal rights even if the organization sometimes resorts to violence”). Responses were captured using a seven-point Likert scale where 1 = “Strongly Disagree” and 7 = “Strongly Agree." The scale was originally validated using a sample of American young adults (Moskalenko & McCauley, 2009) and has since been used with samples of White and European adolescents (Bliesener et al., 2021; Opozda-Suder et al., 2025). Higher scores indicate greater support for violent political action. Perceived parental psychological control Adolescents completed the eight-item PCS-YSR developed by Barber (1996). This scale measures adolescent perception of their parents’ use of psychological control with items such as “My parent is a person who is always trying to change how I feel or think about things” answered on a three-point Likert scale where 1 = "Not like me," 2 = "Somewhat like me," and 3 = "A lot like me." Adolescents were instructed to think of the parent they were taking the survey with while answering each item. This measure has been previously validated in samples of White American adolescents (Bean et al., 2003). Higher scores indicated greater levels of perceived parental psychological control. Loneliness Adolescents completed four items from the UCLA Loneliness Scale, a shortened version of the original 20-item scale (Version 3; Russell, 1996; Matthew et al., 2019). Items asked questions such as “How often do you feel alone?” which were answered using a four-point Likert scale where 0 = “Never”, 1 = “Rarely”, 2 = “Sometimes”, and 3 = “Always." Responses were added together with total scores ranging from 0 to 12, with 12 indicating the greatest level of perceived loneliness. Analytic plan Preliminary analyses conducted in SPSS v.29.0.1 included descriptive statistics and Pearson’s correlations to assess the associations between variables. A sensitivity analysis was conducted in R v.4.5.3 in order to identify the smallest effects able to be detected by the hypothesized model. Assessment of all models was done in MPlus v.8.11 (Muthen & Muthen, 2017). Each scale included in the analysis was estimated as a latent variable, with scale items used as observed indicators (Schumacker & Lomax, 2010). In order to account for measurement error and to assess potential issues with model specification, a measurement model of the five latent variables was tested prior to the hypothesized structural model (Whittaker & Schumacker, 2022). Model fit was evaluated according to the following a priori criteria: nonsignificant χ² result; comparative fit index (CFI) and Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) values greater than .95; root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA) values less than .05; and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) values less than .08 (Weston & Gore, 2006). Maximum likelihood (ML) estimation with 5,000 bootstrapped samples (Hayes, 2012) was used to obtain standardized estimates of the pathways depicted in the hypothesized model (Muthen & Muthen, 2017). Significance of direct and indirect effects was assessed according to asymmetric 95% confidence intervals (CIs) that did not contain zero in order to account for potential non-normality in the dataset (Struben et al., 2015). [1] Supplemental analyses conducted excluding these two adolescents found identical model results. Results Sensitivity analysis To identify the smallest effect sizes the present study would be capable of detecting, a Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis was conducted. Results indicated that the current sample size ( N = 413) provides 80% power to detect a minimum overall serial indirect effect of .0028 This result corresponds to detecting average standardized path coefficients of .23 between each variable in the sequence. Descriptive statistics and correlations See Table 1 for means, standard deviations, skewness, kurtosis, and Pearson’s correlations of the observed variables. Overall, parents reported moderate levels of anxiety and low levels of support for political violence. Adolescents reported relatively high levels of loneliness, moderately low perceived psychological control, and low support for political violence. Table 1 Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations. Variable 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 1. Parent Anxiety -- 2. Parent Radicalization .29*** -- 3. Psychological Control .36*** .24*** -- 4. Adolescent Loneliness .35*** .08 .42*** -- 5. Adolescent Radicalization .27*** .62*** .36*** .21*** -- 6. Parent Gender − .03 .19*** .06 − .03 .10* -- 7. Adolescent Gender − .02 .03 − .10 − .13** .07 .04 -- Mean 2.17 2.50 1.39 4.29 2.41 1.34 1.54 SD 2.69 1.40 .38 3.14 1.49 .47 .50 Skewness 1.50 .75 1.47 .12 .77 .68 − .15 Kurtosis 1.83 − .39 1.52 -1.07 − .48 -1.54 -1.99 Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001. N = 413 parent−adolescent dyads . Structural equation model Assessment of our initial measurement model showed acceptable fit to the data across the majority of the a priori fit indices and approached acceptable fit for the TLI ( χ ² (242) = 471.49, p < .001; CFI = .954; TLI = .947; RMSEA = .048; SRMR = .041). Additionally, all observed indicators related significantly to their respective latent variables. As a result, we proceeded with the assessment of the hypothesized structural model without modifications (McDonald & Ho, 2002). The structural model similarly showed acceptable fit across three of the five a priori fit indices and approached acceptable fit for the TLI ( χ ² (287) = 532.54, p < .001; CFI = .951; TLI = .945; RMSEA = .046; SRMR = .044). Anxiety, adolescent loneliness, and radicalization were controlled for reporter gender as past literature has identified distinct gender differences in mental health (Afifi, 2007; Maes et al., 2019) and endorsement of political violence (Bardall et al., 2020; Duindam et al., 2025). Gender was covaried for in analyses by including paths from reporter gender to adolescent loneliness ( β = − .10, SE = .04, 95% CI [-.19, − .004]), adolescent radicalization ( β = .10, SE = .04, 95% CI [.03, .18]), parental radicalization ( β = .21, SE = .05, 95% CI [.10, .31]), and parental anxiety ( β = − .03, SE = .05, 95% CI [-.14, .08]). Results indicated that girls reported higher levels of loneliness and males reported higher levels of radicalization for both parents and adolescents. Parent gender did not have a significant relationship with parental anxiety. Adolescent age was not included as a demographic covariate as results showed no significant correlation between age and any of the adolescent reported variables. Direct effects In partial support of H1, our results revealed significant direct links between parental anxiety and parental radicalization, adolescent loneliness, and parental psychological control (Fig. 2 ) such that greater parental anxiety was associated with greater scores in all three risk factor variables. However, contrary to our predictions, the direct link between parental anxiety and adolescent support for political violence was nonsignificant and slightly negative. With regards to H2, greater levels of parental radicalization and parental psychological control were each positively associated with adolescent radicalization. This finding aligns with our hypotheses and supports the characterization of these variables as potential risk factors for adolescent extremism. The direct link between adolescent loneliness and adolescent radicalization was marginally nonsignificant. However, the nonsignificant effect was positively-skewed, in line with our predictions. In full support of H3, we found positive direct links between parental psychological control and the two other risk factors, parental radicalization and adolescent loneliness. . Indirect effects The total indirect effect ( β = .34, SE = .06, 95% CI [.23, .47]) of parental anxiety on adolescent radicalization slightly exceeded the total effect ( β = .31, SE = .06, 95% CI [.19, .42]), likely due to the negatively-skewed nonsignificant direct effect. In accordance with H4, analysis revealed that the relation between parental anxiety and adolescent radicalization was indirectly explained by the positive effects of parental radicalization, psychological control, and adolescent loneliness (Table 2 ). All three single-mediator indirect pathways were significant and positive. Parental anxiety was associated with greater levels of parental radicalization, psychological control, and adolescent loneliness, and, in turn, those three variables were positively linked to adolescent radicalization. Table 2 Standardized indirect effects on adolescent support for political violence. Indirect Pathway β SE 95% CI Parent Anxiety → Parent RIS .215 .047 [.131, .313] Parent Anxiety → Psychological Control .076 .034 [.021, .154] Parent Anxiety → Adolescent Loneliness .024 .015 [.001, .059] Parent Anxiety → Parent RIS → Psychological Control .010 .005 [.003, .026] Parent Anxiety → Psychological Control → Adolescent Loneliness .013 .007 [.001, .030] Parent Anxiety → Parent RIS → Psychological Control → Adolescent Loneliness .002 .001 [.000, .006] Note. Estimates were produced using 5,000 bootstrapped samples and maximum likelihood estimation . In partial support of H5, two of the three sequential indirect pathways from parental anxiety to adolescent radicalization tested in this model were significant. The first significant multi-mediator indirect pathway accounted for the link between parental radicalization and parental psychological control. The second significant multi-mediator indirect pathway included the association between parental psychological control and adolescent loneliness. Contrary to our predictions, we did not find significant indirect effects via the three-mediator pathway which accounted for all three risk factor variables. Discussion The goal of the present study was to examine cross-sectional relationships between parental anxiety and support for political violence among conservative White U.S. parents and their adolescent children. We hypothesized that parental anxiety would be linked with both greater adolescent radicalization through indirect pathways via the mediating variables of parental radicalization, adolescent report of parental psychological control, and adolescent loneliness. Using an integrated approach, this study provides new insight into how parent-level and individual-level factors relate to White adolescent support for violent extremism. These findings call for greater focus on family relational dynamics as potential risk factors for radicalization among White American youth. Parental anxiety and risk factors for radicalization The current study centered around investigating factors within family socialization environments that may place adolescents at greater risk for developing politically violent beliefs. We identified associations between parental anxiety and three known risk factors for adolescent radicalization. Models of youth radicalization emphasize the compounding effects of multiple risk and protective influences in forming the psychological basis for extremism, especially with regard to proximal social influences (Beelmann, 2020; Borum, 2025; Di Cicco et al., 2025). In alignment with perspectives on family political socialization (McDevitt & Chaffee, 2002), these frameworks support that parent socialization and parental impact on socioemotional and psychosocial well-being play an important role in shaping how adolescents perceive and feel towards political violence (Zych & Nasaescu, 2022; Emmelkamp et al., 2020). As rhetoric justifying the use of violence gains popularity in mainstream conservative media (Brown & Mondon, 2026; Thompson & Sengul, 2025) and support for political violence becomes increasingly prevalent among White conservatives (Wintemute et al., 2025a), understanding the influence White conservative parents may have on extremist attitudes in their adolescent children is increasingly important. In line with past findings on social- and individual-level risk factors (Zych & Nasaescu, 2022), we found that parent reports of experiencing higher levels of state anxiety over the past week were linked to higher levels of parental radicalization, adolescent report of parental psychological control, and adolescent loneliness. Our results also align with past work demonstrating gender differences in loneliness (Maes et al., 2019) and political violence attitudes (Bardall et al., 2020; Duindam et al., 2025), as female participants reported less support for political violence and female adolescents reported greater loneliness compared to males. Our findings suggest that, in conservative White families, parental anxiety may be a common factor tied to multiple known sources of risk for youth radicalization. In light of the growing threat posed by violent far-right extremism and White nationalism in the U.S. (Haner et al., 2025), the results of our study may have implications for considering youth radicalization as a family process and integrating parent-level level factors in the design of future interventions. Our findings demonstrated that parents with higher weekly levels of state anxiety were more likely to endorse the use of violence against political opponents. Many of the far-right narratives platformed by mainstream conservative media are specifically tailored to exploit feelings of anxiety and fear among White conservatives (Salmela & Von Scheve, 2017; Reyna et al., 2022; Thompson & Sengul, 2025). Conspiracies like the “Great Replacement” theory, stories of illegal immigrants committing violent crimes against White women and children, and concerns over White applicants being passed over for college admissions or employment opportunities are crafted to evoke anxiety in White parents concerned with the future of their children and family (Obaidi et al., 2022; Skogan, 1995; Iyer, 2022). These fear-mongering narratives simultaneously intensify White Americans’ existing anxieties while also bluntly alluding to a political solution using violent means (Isom Scott & Andersen, 2020). As such, elevated levels of anxiety may place White parents at greater risk for adopting radical beliefs and exposing their children to related ideas. Consideration of this link may be especially relevant to understanding violent extremism in White American youth. Results from our analysis corroborate past studies in finding that adolescents whose parents scored higher in anxiety were more likely to report experiences of psychological control (Apsley & Padilla-Walker, 2020; Xu et al., 2020). Cultural norms in White American families typically frame growing independence and autonomy as central tasks during adolescence (Benito-Gomez et al., 2020). Past studies have linked restrictive parenting to maladaptive adjustment in White adolescents (Harris-McKoy, 2016), potentially as a result of violating cultural expectations around autonomy-granting in White American families (Beyers et al., 2025). Due to the added stress caused by feelings of anxiety, anxious White parents may have fewer mental and emotional resources to put towards conforming to norms about supporting adolescent autonomy and volition (Schrock & Woodruff-Borden, 2010; Costa et al., 2019). Heightened anxiety may also aggravate parents’ needs to feel “in-control” of their environment and family, and thus contribute to attempts at managing the behaviors and emotions of their adolescents (Soenens & Vansteenkiste, 2010). As a result, parental anxiety may contribute to a family emotional climate in which adolescents are taught to refrain from honest emotional expression, obey authority rigidly, and disregard the emotional needs of others (Burstein et al., 2010). We also found direct links between parental anxiety and adolescent loneliness. Beyond increased psychological control, parental anxiety may also simply impair parents’ emotional availability and support capacity (Epkins & Harper, 2016). At a sociocognitive level, anxiety can inhibit the accurate appraisal of others’ emotional states (Baez et al., 2023) and restrict emotional processing necessary for social functioning abilities like empathy and perspective taking (Nair et al., 2024). Anxious parents may have greater difficulty recognizing and appropriately responding to the immediate emotional needs of their children, which can have detrimental effects on adolescent socioemotional well-being (Gondoli & Silverberg, 1997; McCurdy et al., 2022). Adolescents with more overwhelmed, inattentive, or emotionally disconnected parents may experience greater internalizing symptoms and other mental health challenges (Sofrona & Giannakopoulos, 2024), which may further amplify feelings of loneliness (Hall-Lande et al., 2007). Alternatively, anxious parents may model behaviors like avoidance, rumination, or reactivity and as a result influence adolescent proneness to social withdrawal and loneliness (Turner et al., 2003; Sege et al., 2018). Indirect pathways to adolescent radicalization Although we did not find a direct association, our results revealed that parental anxiety was indirectly associated with adolescent radicalization through its links to multiple risk factors. We found that increases in parents’ support for political violence partially explained the link between heightened parental anxiety and greater adolescent radicalization. This finding aligns with existing frameworks of political socialization that identify parents as among the most important proximal sources for political information during development (McDevitt & Chaffee, 2002). In turn, studies of radicalization have likewise identified having an extremist family member as a risk factor for radicalization (Zych & Nasaescu, 2022). Parents and adolescents tend to express similar political beliefs and attitudes linked to extremism, including social dominance orientation, right-wing authoritarianism, and affective polarization (Duriez & Soenens, 2009; Tyler & Iyengar, 2023). Some of the agreement between parent and adolescent ideological beliefs can likely be traced back to means of direct political socialization, such as through explicit conversations about political topics or the parent’s political engagement (Kim & Stattin, 2019). Adolescents can also pick up on their parents’ political attitudes environmentally, such as through the types of media the parent consumes and the social contexts parents expose their children to (e.g., homeschooling, attending church; Tedin, 1974). However, it is unknown whether these means of socializing conventional political beliefs are also accurate to the transmission of extremism within the family. While the present findings represent an important step towards understanding the integrated psychological processes associated with radicalization in the family context, there are a wide array of other potential socialization pathways to be studied in future research. Results from our model indicated that parental anxiety was also indirectly linked to adolescent radicalization via higher levels of parental psychological control. Past work has supported that negative parenting and parent-child conflict may place adolescents at greater risk for extremist radicalization (Zych & Nasaescu, 2022). This connection may partly be attributable to the inverse relationship between negative parenting and supportive parenting, a known protective factor against youth radicalization (Lösel et al., 2018; Marsden & Lee, 2022). Parental support may make adolescents less vulnerable to extremist narratives that target unmet psychosocial needs in order to garner support for radicalist action (Amit & Al Kafy, 2022; Harpviken, 2020). In contrast, psychologically controlling parents may be less likely to support adolescents in recontextualizing emotions or perspectives concerning the legitimacy of violence as a means of accomplishing political goals by providing alternative viewpoints. Rather, psychologically controlling parents likely curate a family emotional environment in which adolescents are expected to censor their emotional instincts, obey authority, and adhere to unfair or unreasonable rules (Barber & Harmon, 2002). Children of controlling parents have also been shown to have reduced psychological flexibility (Williams et al., 2012) and poorer emotion regulation (Qian et al., 2022). These experiences in the family context and subsequent developmental consequences may prime adolescents for affiliation with radical groups (Lavi & Slone, 2012; Borum et al., 2025). By consistently invalidating their children’s emotions and modelling unempathic behavior, parents may make adolescents less sensitive to the emotional suffering of others (Yoo et al., 2013), and as a result more willing to engage in violence. As such, the present finding is a novel contribution regarding psychological control as a risk factor for adolescent radicalization, and suggests that this effect may be influenced by parental anxiety. While we did not find a direct relationship between adolescent loneliness and adolescent radicalization, our results also showed that parental anxiety was indirectly linked to adolescent radicalization through its positive relationship with adolescent loneliness. Similar to the effects of psychological control, experiences of loneliness during adolescence may result in social and emotional deficiencies that can exacerbate vulnerability to violent radicalization (Borum, 2014; 2025; Di Cicco et al., 2025). Loneliness caused by parental inattention or rejection can have negative impacts on adolescent social functioning in peer environments, leading to greater risk for experiences of peer rejection and thus contributing to further loneliness (Wu et al., 2022). Regardless of the inciting mechanisms, loneliness and the lack of a strong social support network are well known risk factors for radicalization during adolescence (Zych & Nasaescu, 2022). In line with theoretical frameworks of radicalization (Di Cicco et al., 2025), loneliness has also been linked to a number of other emotional and mental health symptoms that could have compounding effects on adolescent vulnerability to radicalization, such low self-esteem (Lyyra et al., 2021) and a lack of belongingness (Beattie et al., 2024). For example, Opozda-Suder et al. (2025) found that loneliness mediated the effects of low self-esteem on support for political violence. For youth who feel lonely or isolated, extremist political movements offer attractive incentives by promising a supportive community and a positive identity to take pride in (Amit & Al Kafy, 2022). Given the growing epidemic of mental health and internalizing problems among adolescents (Blomqvist et al., 2019), our findings align with past research and suggest that loneliness may be an effective intervention target for preventing radicalization (Jugl et al., 2020). As an extension of these findings, we additionally found two multi-mediator indirect connections linking parental anxiety with adolescent radicalization. While the cross-sectional nature of our study limits our ability to interpret sequential effects, theoretical frameworks and past empirical studies support the possibility that these effects may represent pathways from parental anxiety to youth radicalization. While we did not find a significant effect for our three-mediator pathway, our results suggest that these effects represent an integrated family socialization process that may involve multiple simultaneous mechanisms through which parents influence adolescents' support for radical violence. First, we found a significant indirect link between parental anxiety and adolescent extremism through the effects of parental radicalization on psychological control. Our finding of a significant relationship between parental radicalization and psychological control is a novel contribution to our understanding of the effects of radical beliefs on family functioning. Cognitive information processing theories have suggested that behaviors may be shaped by how we interpret social cues and interactions (Clore et al., 2014). Chronic exposure to hostile or extremist political ideas that dehumanize outgroups or decenter taboos concerning violence and may reinforce threat-based interpretations (Keene et al., 2017). Therefore, holding radical beliefs may make parents more prone to hostile attributions towards their children, which has been linked to greater use of relational aggression among parents (Werner, 2012). Theories of the antecedents of parenting behavior have also argued that psychological control may be motivated by unmet internal needs (Soenens & Vansteenkiste, 2010). These internal issues may be exacerbated by the connection between violent radicalization and poorer psychological well-being (Beelmann, 2020). Right-wing extremist beliefs may also be associated with greater preference for traditional social hierarchies and customs (Jost et al., 2018). Parents may attempt to instill deference for authority and compliance with rigid rule systems in their adolescent children by exerting control over adolescents’ emotional expressions and behavior (Soenens & Vansteenkiste, 2010). As a result, parenting behavior may be a means through which parents transmit radical beliefs to their adolescent children. Second, we found an indirect pathway between parental anxiety and adolescent radicalization through the effects of parental psychological control on adolescent loneliness. This result aligns with past findings showing that parental control may mediate the detrimental effects of parental anxiety on adolescent internalizing outcomes (Emerson et al., 2019), or may even directly induce loneliness (Koopmans, 2023). Components of psychological control, such as parental rejection, love withdrawal, and emotional invalidation, may heighten adolescent distrust of others and emotional instability (Rohner & Smith, 2019; Mendo-Lázaro et al., 2019) and as a result place them at greater risk of loneliness (Rowe et al., 2015; Buecker et al., 2024). These elements of psychological control may also negatively impact adolescent social competence and thus contribute to feelings of loneliness due to maladaptive peer functioning (Wu et al., 2022). Adolescents who experience being rejected or manipulated by their parents may be more distrusting of others or have negative self-beliefs that impair social functioning (Rohner & Smith, 2019). In turn, frameworks of radicalization have identified these psychological vulnerabilities as critical risk factors for youth extremism (Borum, 2025; Tirkkonen & Tietjen, 2025). Limitations The present study featured both strengths and limitations. We utilized a dyadic design, allowing us to capture both adolescent and parent perceptions. Having the perspectives of both parents and adolescents strengthens the validity of our results and the inferences we can make using these findings. However, the use of a third-party panel provider through which parents recruited their own children as study participants may have had implications for motivational and compliance dynamics that are relevant to family processes and politically sensitive attitudes. However, the correlations between parent and adolescent political outcomes are comparable to other dyadic studies using alternative methods (Duriez & Soenens, 2009; Van Ditmars, 2023). Beyond this possible drawback, anonymous online data collection offers multiple benefits as a methodological approach. For example, our methods allowed us to collect responses from participants across multiple major regions of the continental U.S., and also minimized potential social desirability effects from the presence of an in-person experimenter when responding to questions about extremist or taboo beliefs. Another limitation of the present study is that the data available was collected at a single time point, which limits our ability to determine the directionality of effects. As such, future studies using longitudinal designs will be critical to further exploring the effects of parental anxiety on risk factors for radicalization, and how these dynamics play out over time. It is also important to note that the measure of radicalization used in this study is designed to capture hypothetical support for the use of political violence. As a result, we are unable to ascertain whether the beliefs about extremist violence expressed by parent and adolescent participants reflect real-world behaviors or intentions. Wintemute et al. (2025a) found that although “MAGA” Republicans were more likely to endorse political violence, they were not more willing to personally engage in violence compared to other political groups. While there is a critical distinction between support and behavioral intentions, attitudes towards hypothetical political violence may still have important implications for other forms of political behavior and normalization of violence within the U.S. political sphere. Future research directions Future studies using longitudinal designs will be necessary to corroborate the validity of the current findings as sequential developmental processes (as opposed to correlational effects). In order to identify potential risk or protective factors for political radicalization among White American adolescents, greater attention must be paid to individual and dyadic factors affecting parent-adolescent dynamics. Additionally, it may be important to consider the possibility of bidirectional or transactional effects between parents and adolescents in influencing processes related to psychological adjustment and radicalization. Researchers may also investigate the developmental precedents of radical intentions versus radical behavior, where these processes may differ or converge, and whether there are specific family-level socialization factors that drive adolescent extremists to translate their beliefs into violent action. Future studies could alternatively explore potential links between adolescent extremism and nonviolent political action, including future voting behavior, civic engagement, and involvement with political organizations. The benefits of discerning the socialization contexts and relational processes that give rise to radical beliefs relies on our ability to accurately assess how these beliefs influence adolescents’ real-world behaviors. Prevention implications and conclusions Although our results cannot determine causality, the indirect relations shown in the present model suggest that parental anxiety, parental radicalization, and parenting behavior may be important targets for future interventions aiming to reduce support for violent extremism among White American adolescents. Specifically, parent factors related to adolescent loneliness, isolation, or social exclusion may be associated with greater risk for political radicalization. Prevention strategies focused on providing parents with adaptive coping methods for dealing with anxiety may have broad spectrum benefits to the family environment, parent-adolescent relationship quality, and adolescent adjustment that may also serve as protective factors against radicalization. In sum, the findings of this study highlight the critical role of family relational and psychological processes in shaping adolescents’ support for political violence. By demonstrating both direct and indirect contributions of parental anxiety to adolescent radicalization, this work underscores how parental mental health and family dynamics can serve as key mechanisms in the intergenerational transmission of extremist beliefs. These results suggest that interventions addressing parental anxiety and its downstream effects on parenting behavior and adolescent social well-being may offer promising avenues for reducing vulnerability to radicalization among White American youth. Ultimately, understanding how emotional processes within families interact with broader sociopolitical influences represents a vital step toward developing more holistic, prevention-oriented approaches to countering violent extremism. Declarations Author Contribution MW wrote the manuscript, prepared figures, conducted analysis, oversaw data collection, co-authored funding efforts, and collaborated in study design.DL, SB, DA, MG, ZM, RF, and DP reviewed the manuscript, co-authored funding efforts, and collaborated in study design.RB reviewed the manuscript in detail, assisted in copy-editing, and assisted in literature review. Data Availability Data used in this manuscript is not currently publicly available as it is part of an ongoing longitudinal study. Additionally, the variables used in this analysis include topics of a sensitive nature. Data will be made available in a secure public repository once data collection is complete. References Afifi, M. (2007). Gender differences in mental health. Singapore Medical Journal , 48(5), 385. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17453094/ Álvarez-García, D., García, T., Barreiro-Collazo, A., Dobarro, A., & Antúnez, Á. (2016). Parenting style dimensions as predictors of adolescent antisocial behavior. Frontiers in psychology , 7 , 1383. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01383 Amit, S., & Kafy, A. A. (2022). A systematic literature review on preventing violent extremism. Journal of Adolescence , 94 (8), 1068-1080. https://doi.org/10.1002/jad.12095 Apsley, H. B., & Padilla-Walker, L. M. (2020). Longitudinal links between parents’ mental health, parenting, and adolescents’ mental health: Moderation by adolescent sex. Journal of Family Psychology , 34(7), 886-892. http://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000788 Armaly, M.T., Buckley, D.T. & Enders, A.M. (2022). Christian Nationalism and Political Violence: Victimhood, Racial Identity, Conspiracy, and Support for the Capitol Attacks. Political Behavior, 44, 937–960. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-021-09758-y Armaly, M. T., & Enders, A. M. (2024). Who Supports Political Violence? Perspectives on Politics , 22 (2), 427–444. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592722001086 Baez, S., Tangarife, M. A., Davila-Mejia, G., Trujillo-Güiza, M., & Forero, D. A. (2023). Performance in emotion recognition and theory of mind tasks in social anxiety and generalized anxiety disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychiatry , 14 , 1192683. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1192683 Balz, D., Clement, S., & Guskin, E. (2022). Republicans and Democrats divided over Jan. 6 insurrection and Trump’s culpability, Post-UMD poll finds. The Washington Post . https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/01/post-poll-january-6/ Barber, B. K. (1996). Parental psychological control: Revisiting a neglected construct. Child development , 67(6), 3296-3319. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1996.tb01915.x Barber, B. K., & Harmon, E. L. (2002). Violating the self: Parental psychological control of children and adolescents. In B. K. Barber (Ed.), Intrusive parenting: How psychological control affects children and adolescents (pp. 15–52). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10422-002 Bardall, G., Bjarnegård, E., & Piscopo, J. M. (2020). How is political violence gendered? Disentangling motives, forms, and impacts. Political Studies , 68 (4), 916-935. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321719881812 Bliesener, T., Schröder, C. P., & Lehmann, L. (2021). Pathways to radicalization in adolescence: The development of ideological beliefs, acceptance of violence, and extremist behavior. Monatsschrift für Kriminologie und Strafrechtsreform , 104 (3), 231-242. https://doi.org/10.1515/mks-2021-0124 Bean, R. A., Bush, K. R., McKenry, P. C., & Wilson, S. M. (2003). The impact of parental support, behavioral control, and psychological control on the academic achievement and self-esteem of African American and European American adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research , 18 (5), 523-541. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558403255070 Beattie, M., Kiuru, N., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2024). Belongingness to groups, adolescent loneliness trajectories, and their consequences. International Journal of Behavioral Development , 49 (3), 240-251. https://doi.org/10.1177/01650254241294019 Belsky, J. (1984). The Determinants of Parenting: A Process Model. Child Development , 55 (1), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.2307/1129836 Benito‐Gomez, M., Williams, K. N., McCurdy, A., & Fletcher, A. C. (2020). Autonomy‐supportive parenting in adolescence: Cultural variability in the contemporary United States. Journal of Family Theory & Review , 12 (1), 7-26. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12362 Beyers, W., Soenens, B., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2025). Autonomy in adolescence: a conceptual, developmental and cross-cultural perspective. European Journal of Developmental Psychology , 22 (2), 121-141. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2024.2330734 Blomqvist, I., Henje Blom, E., Hägglöf, B., & Hammarström, A. (2019). Increase of internalized mental health symptoms among adolescents during the last three decades. European journal of public health , 29 (5), 925-931. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckz028 Borum, R. (2014). Psychological vulnerabilities and propensities for involvement in violent extremism. Behavioral sciences & the law , 32 (3), 286-305. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2110 Borum, R. (2025). Developmental considerations for assessing the risk of extremist violence in adolescents. Journal of Threat Assessment and Management. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/tam0000248 Bronfenbrenner, U. (1994). Ecological models of human development. International encyclopedia of education , 3 (2), 37-43. Brown, K., & Mondon, A. (2026). The Media and the Mainstreaming of the Far Right: Reporting, enabling or countering?. In The Far Right and the Media (pp. 15-33). Routledge. Buecker, S., Petersen, K., Neuber, A., Zheng, Y., Hayes, D., & Qualter, P. (2024). A systematic review of longitudinal risk and protective factors for loneliness in youth. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences , 1542 (1), 620-637. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.15266 Burstein, M., Ginsburg, G.S. & Tein, JY. Parental Anxiety and Child Symptomatology: An Examination of Additive and Interactive Effects of Parent Psychopathology. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 38, 897–909 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-010-9415-0 Calatrava, M., Martins, M. V., Schweer-Collins, M., Duch-Ceballos, C., & Rodríguez-González, M. (2022). Differentiation of self: A scoping review of Bowen Family Systems Theory’s core construct. Clinical psychology review , 91 , 102101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2021.102101 Cicognani, E., Zani, B., Fournier, B., Gavray, C., & Born, M. (2012). Gender differences in youths’ political engagement and participation. The role of parents and of adolescents’ social and civic participation. Journal of adolescence , 35 (3), 561-576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.10.002 Clore, G. L., Schwarz, N., & Conway, M. (2014). Affective causes and consequences of social information processing. In Handbook of social cognition (pp. 323-418). Psychology Press. Costa, S., Gugliandolo, M. C., Barberis, N., Cuzzocrea, F., & Liga, F. (2019). Antecedents and consequences of parental psychological control and autonomy support: The role of psychological basic needs. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships , 36 (4), 1168-1189. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407518756778 Crosby Budinger, M., Drazdowski, T.K. & Ginsburg, G.S. Anxiety-Promoting Parenting Behaviors: A Comparison of Anxious Parents with and without Social Anxiety Disorder. Child Psychiatry and Human Development , 44, 412–418 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-012-0335-9 Di Cicco, G., Molinario, E., Contu, F., Pierro, A., Douglas, K. M., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2025). From conspiracies to insurgence: understanding the path from conspiracy beliefs to political engagement through the 3N model of radicalization. Current Psychology , 1-19. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s12144-025-07710-5 Dunn, D., Wray‐Lake, L., & Plummer, J. A. (2022). Youth are watching: Adolescents’ sociopolitical development in the Trump era. Child Development , 93 (4), 1044-1060. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13762 Duriez, B., & Soenens, B. (2009). The intergenerational transmission of racism: The role of right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation. Journal of Research in Personality , 43 (5), 906-909. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.05.014 Emerson, L. M., Ogielda, C., & Rowse, G. (2019). A systematic review of the role of parents in the development of anxious cognitions in children. Journal of Anxiety Disorders , 62 , 15-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2018.11.002 Emmelkamp, J., Asscher, J. J., Wissink, I. B., & Stams, G. J. J. (2020). Risk factors for (violent) radicalization in juveniles: A multilevel meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior , 55 , 101489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2020.101489 Epkins, C. C., & Harper, S. L. (2016). Mothers’ and fathers’ parental warmth, hostility/rejection/neglect, and behavioral control: Specific and unique relations with parents’ depression versus anxiety symptoms. Parenting , 16 (2), 125-145. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295192.2016.1134991 Fasching, N., Iyengar, S., Lelkes, Y., & Westwood, S. J. (2024). Persistent polarization: The unexpected durability of political animosity around US elections. Science Advances , 10 (36). https://doi.org/ 10.1126/sciadv.adm9198 Feddes, A. R., Mann, L., & Doosje, B. (2015). Increasing self‐esteem and empathy to prevent violent radicalization: a longitudinal quantitative evaluation of a resilience training focused on adolescents with a dual identity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 45 (7), 400-411. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12307 Feinberg, M., Wehling, E., Chung, J. M., Saslow, L. R., & Melvær Paulin, I. (2020). Measuring moral politics: How strict and nurturant family values explain individual differences in conservatism, liberalism, and the political middle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 118 (4), 777. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000255 Frick, P. J., & Viding, E. (2009). Antisocial behavior from a developmental psychopathology perspective. Development and Psychopathology , 21 (4), 1111–1131. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579409990071 Gavazzi, S. M., & Lim, J. Y. (2023). Family systems theory. In Families with adolescents: Bridging the gaps between theory, research, and practice (pp. 35-45). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43407-5_4 Gondoli, D. M., & Silverberg, S. B. (1997). Maternal emotional distress and diminished responsiveness: the mediating role of parenting efficacy and parental perspective taking. Developmental Psychology , 33 (5), 861–868. https://doi.org/10.1037//0012-1649.33.5.861 Grusec, J. E. (2011). Socialization processes in the family: Social and emotional development. Annual Review of Psychology , 62 (1), 243-269. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.121208.131650 Hair, E. C., Park, M. J., Ling, T. J., & Moore, K. A. (2009). Risky behaviors in late adolescence: co-occurrence, predictors, and consequences. Journal of Adolescent Health , 45(3), 253-261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.02.009 Hall-Lande, J. A., Eisenberg, M. E., Christenson, S. L., & Neumark-Sztainer, D. (2007). Social Isolation, Psychological Health, and Protective Factors in Adolescence. Adolescence , 42 (166), 265–286. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17849936/ Haner, M., Sloan, M. M., & Pickett, J. T. (2025). White Nationalism and Support for Political Violence in the United States. Justice Quarterly , 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2025.2504966 Harpviken, A.N. Psychological Vulnerabilities and Extremism Among Western Youth: A Literature Review. Adolescent Research Review 5, 1–26 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40894-019-00108-y Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling [White paper]. Retrieved from http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf Hazelbaker, T., Brown, C. S., Nenadal, L., & Mistry, R. S. (2022). Fostering anti-racism in white children and youth: Development within contexts. American Psychologist , 77 (4), 497. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000948 Hughes, M. E., Waite, L. J., Hawkley, L. C., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2004). A Short Scale for Measuring Loneliness in Large Surveys: Results From Two Population-Based Studies. Research on aging , 26(6), 655–672. https://doi.org/10.1177/0164027504268574 Isom Scott, D. A., & Stevens Andersen, T. (2020). ‘Whitelash?’ status threat, anger, and white America: a general strain theory approach. Journal of Crime and Justice , 43 (4), 414–432. https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2019.1704835 Iyer, A. (2022). Understanding advantaged groups' opposition to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies: The role of perceived threat. Social and Personality Psychology Compass , 16 (5), e12666. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12666 Jensen, M. A., Atwell Seate, A., & James, P. A. (2020). Radicalization to violence: A pathway approach to studying extremism. Terrorism and Political Violence , 32 (5), 1067-1090. https://doi.org/10.1080/09546553.2018.1442330 Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Sulloway, F. J., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2018). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. The motivated mind , 129-204. Jugl, I., Lösel, F., Bender, D., & King, S. (2020). Psychosocial prevention programs against radicalization and extremism: A meta-analysis of outcome evaluations. European journal of psychology applied to legal context , 13 (1), 37-46. https://doi.org/10.5093/ejpalc2021a6 Keene, J. R., Shoenberger, H., Berke, C. K., & Bolls, P. D. (2017). The biological roots of political extremism: Negativity bias, political ideology, and preferences for political news. Politics and the Life Sciences , 36(2), 37–48. doi:10.1017/pls.2017.16 Kerry, N., & Murray, D. R. (2018). Conservative parenting: Investigating the relationships between parenthood, moral judgment, and social conservatism. Personality and Individual Differences , 134 , 88-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.05.045 Kim, Y., & Stattin, H. (2019). Parent-youth discussions about politics from age 13 to 28. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology , 62 , 249-259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2019.04.001 Koopmans, Y., Nelemans, S. A., Bosmans, G., Van Den Noortgate, W., Van Leeuwen, K., & Goossens, L. (2023). Perceived parental support and psychological control, DNA methylation, and loneliness: longitudinal associations across early adolescence. Journal of youth and adolescence , 52(10), 1995-2011. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-023-01822-6 Kruglanski, A. W., Szumowska, E., Kopetz, C. H., Vallerand, R. J., & Pierro, A. (2021). On the psychology of extremism: How motivational imbalance breeds intemperance. Psychological Review, 128 (2), 264–289. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000260 Kuhn, H. P. (2004). Adolescent voting for right-wing extremist parties and readiness to use violence in political action: Parent and peer contexts. Journal of adolescence , 27 (5), 561-581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2004.06.009 Lavi, I., & Slone, M. (2012). Parental practices and political violence: The protective role of parental warmth and authority-control in Jewish and Arab Israeli children. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 82 (4), 550–561. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-0025.2012.01183.x Liu, J., Li, D., Purwono, U., Chen, X., & French, D. C. (2015). Loneliness of Indonesian and Chinese adolescents as predicted by relationships with friends and parents. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly , 61(3), 362–382. https://doi.org/10.13110/merrpalmquar1982.61.3.0362 Lösel, F., Bliesener, T., & Bender, D. (2007). Social Information Processing, Experiences of Aggression in Social Contexts, and Aggressive Behavior in Adolescents. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(3), 330-347. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854806295833 Lösel, F., King, S., Bender, D., & Jugl, I. (2018). Protective factors against extremism and violent radicalization: A systematic review of research. International journal of developmental science , 12 (1-2), 89-102. https://doi.org/10.3233/DEV-170241 Lovibond, P. F., & Lovibond, S. H. (1995). The structure of negative emotional states: Comparison of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS) with the Beck Depression and Anxiety Inventories. Behaviour research and therapy , 33 (3), 335-343. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(94)00075-U Lyyra, N., Thorsteinsson, E. B., Eriksson, C., Madsen, K. R., Tolvanen, A., Löfstedt, P., & Välimaa, R. (2021). The association between loneliness, mental well-being, and self-esteem among adolescents in four Nordic countries. International journal of environmental research and public health , 18 (14), 7405. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18147405 Maes, M., Qualter, P., Vanhalst, J., Van den Noortgate, W., & Goossens, L. (2019). Gender differences in loneliness across the lifespan: A meta–analysis. European Journal of Personality , 33 (6), 642-654. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2220 Maes, M., & Vanhalst, J. (2025). Loneliness as a double-edged sword: an adaptive function with maladaptive consequences. European Journal of Developmental Psychology , 22 (2), 188–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2024.2333584 Marsden, S., & Lee, B. (2022). Protective Factors for Violent Extremism and Terrorism: Rapid Evidence Assessment. Lancaster, UK: Centre for Research and Evidence on Security Threats (CREST) . https://crestresearch.ac.uk/projects/constraining-violence/ Matthews, T., Odgers, C. L., Danese, A., Fisher, H. L., Newbury, J. B., Caspi, A., ... & Arseneault, L. (2019). Loneliness and neighborhood characteristics: A multi-informant, nationally representative study of young adults. Psychological science , 30(5), 765-775. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797619836102 McCurdy, B.H., Scott, B.G. & Weems, C.F. The Associations Among Parent Anxiety, Emotion Regulation, and Parenting Behaviors. Journal of Child and Family Studies 31, 2618–2630 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-022-02389-9 McDevitt, M., & Chaffee, S. (2002). From Top-Down to Trickle-Up Influence: Revisiting Assumptions About the Family in Political Socialization. Political Communication , 19(3), 281–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/01957470290055501 McDonald, R. P., & Ho, M.-H. R. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychological Methods, 7 (1), 64–82. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.64 Međedović, J. M., & Petrović, B. (2021). Intergroup conflict runs in the family: Parental social attitudes and political ideology predict the ethos of conflict in their offspring. Psihologija , 54 (4), 347-362. https://doi.org/10.2298/PSI200402028M Mendo-Lázaro, S., León-del-Barco, B., Polo-del-Río, M. I., Yuste-Tosina, R., & López-Ramos, V. M. (2019). The role of parental acceptance–rejection in emotional instability during adolescence. International journal of environmental research and public health , 16(7), 1194. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16071194 Mondon, A., & Winter, A. (2020a). Whiteness, populism and the racialisation of the working class in the United Kingdom and the United States. In Whiteness and nationalism (pp. 10-28). Routledge. Mondon, A., & Winter, A. (2020b). Reactionary democracy: How racism and the populist far right became mainstream . Verso Books. Moskalenko, S., & McCauley, C. (2009). Measuring political mobilization: The distinction between activism and radicalism. Terrorism and political violence , 21 (2), 239-260. https://doi.org/10.1080/09546550902765508 Mounts, N. S., Valentiner, D. P., Anderson, K. L., & Boswell, M. K. (2006). Shyness, sociability, and parental support for the college transition: Relation to adolescents’ adjustment. Journal of Youth and Adolescence , 35(1), 68–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-005-9002-9 Mun, I. B. (2022). A longitudinal study on the effects of parental anxiety on mobile game addiction in adolescents: the mediating role of adolescent anxiety and loneliness. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction , 22 (1), 560-577. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-022-00890-2 Nair, T. K., Waslin, S. M., Rodrigues, G. A., Datta, S., Moore, M. T., & Brumariu, L. E. (2024). A meta-analytic review of the relations between anxiety and empathy. Journal of anxiety disorders , 101 , 102795. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2023.102795 Neundorf, A., Smets, K. & García-Albacete, G. Homemade citizens: The development of political interest during adolescence and young adulthood. Acta Politica 48, 92–116 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1057/ap.2012.23 Obaidi, M., Kunst, J., Ozer, S., & Kimel, S. Y. (2022). The “Great Replacement” conspiracy: How the perceived ousting of Whites can evoke violent extremism and Islamophobia. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations , 25 (7), 1675-1695. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302211028293 Opozda-Suder, S., Łopatkiewicz, A., & Michel, M. (2025). The relationship between self-esteem and aggressive behavior: Exploring the mediating role of loneliness and support for violent radicalization. Psychology of Violence . https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000612 Pauwels, L. J., & Heylen, B. (2020). Perceived group threat, perceived injustice, and self-reported right-wing violence: An integrative approach to the explanation right-wing violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 35 (21-22), 4276-4302. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517713711 Qian, G., Wu, Y., Wang, W., Li, L., Hu, X., Li, R., Liu, C., Huang, A., Han, R., An, Y., & Dou, G. (2022). Parental psychological control and adolescent social problems: The mediating effect of emotion regulation. Frontiers in psychiatry , 13, 995211. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.995211 Rekker, R., Keijsers, L., Branje, S., & Meeus, W. (2017). The dynamics of political identity and issue attitudes in adolescence and early adulthood. Electoral Studies , 46 , 101-111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2017.02.005 Reyna, C., Bellovary, A., & Harris, K. (2022). The psychology of White nationalism: Ambivalence towards a changing America. Social Issues and Policy Review , 16 (1), 79-124. https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12081 Rohner, R. P., & Smith, R. L. (2019). Parental acceptance-rejection. In Handbook of parenting (pp. 401-420). Routledge. Rowe, S.L., Gembeck, M.J.Z., Rudolph, J. et al. A Longitudinal Study of Rejecting and Autonomy-Restrictive Parenting, Rejection Sensitivity, and Socioemotional Symptoms in Early Adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 43, 1107–1118 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-014-9966-6 Russell, D. W. (1996). UCLA Loneliness Scale (Version 3): Reliability, Validity, and Factor Structure. Journal of Personality Assessment , 66(1), 20–40. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6601_2 Salmela, M., & Von Scheve, C. (2017). Emotional roots of right-wing political populism. Social Science Information , 56 (4), 567-595. https://doi.org/10.1177/0539018417734419 Schils, N., & Verhage, A. (2017). Understanding How and Why Young People Enter Radical or Violent Extremist Groups. International Journal of Conflict & Violence , 11 (1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.4119/UNIBI/ijcv.473 Schrock, M., & Woodruff-Borden, J. (2010). Parent-Child Interactions in Anxious Families. Child & Family Behavior Therapy , 32 (4), 291–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/07317107.2010.515523 Schroeder, J., & Epley, N. (2020). Demeaning: Dehumanizing others by minimizing the importance of their psychological needs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 119 (4), 765. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/pspa0000199 Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2010). A beginner's guide to structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. Seemann, A. (2022). The Psychological Structure of Loneliness. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 19(3), 1061. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19031061 Sege, C. T., Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (2018). Avoidance and escape: Defensive reactivity and trait anxiety. Behaviour Research and Therapy , 104 , 62-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2018.03.002 Segrin, C., Woszidlo, A., Givertz, M., & Montgomery, N. (2013). Parent and child traits associated with overparenting. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology , 32 (6), 569-595. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2013.32.6.569 Singam, K. V. (2025). Assessing the Extreme Right in the West in 2024. Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses , 17 (1), 118–125. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48807514 Skogan, W. G. (1995). Crime and the racial fears of white Americans. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science , 539 (1), 59-71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716295539001005 Soenens, B., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2010). A theoretical upgrade of the concept of parental psychological control: Proposing new insights on the basis of self-determination theory. Developmental Review , 30 (1), 74-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2009.11.001 Sofrona, E., & Giannakopoulos, G. (2024). The impact of parental depressive, anxiety, and stress symptoms on adolescents’ mental health and quality of life: The moderating role of parental rejection. Children , 11 (11), 1361. https://doi.org/10.3390/children11111361 Spithoven, A. W., Bijttebier, P., & Goossens, L. (2017). It is all in their mind: A review on information processing bias in lonely individuals. Clinical psychology review , 58 , 97-114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2017.10.003 Sporer, K., & Buxton, B. (2024). The role of family members in the prevention of violent extremism and terrorism: A scoping review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior , 78 , 101990. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2024.101990 Struben, J., Sterman, J., & Keith, D. (2015). Parameter estimation through maximum likelihood and bootstrapping methods. Analytical methods for dynamic modelers , 1 , 3-38. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9927.001.0001 Tedin, K. L. (1974). The influence of parents on the political attitudes of adolescents. American Political Science Review , 68 (4), 1579-1592. https://doi.org/10.2307/1959943 Thompson, J. D., & Sengul, K. (2025). The platforming is the point: News media,‘the oxygen of amplification’, and interviewing the far-right. Communication and the Public . https://doi.org/10.1177/205704732513348 Tirkkonen, S. K., & Tietjen, R. R. (2025). Loneliness and radicalization. Philosophy & Social Criticism . https://doi.org/10.1177/01914537251334550 Trip, S., Bora, C. H., Marian, M., Halmajan, A., & Drugas, M. I. (2019). Psychological mechanisms involved in radicalization and extremism. A rational emotive behavioral conceptualization. Frontiers in Psychology , 10, 437. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00437 Turner, S. M., Beidel, D. C., Roberson-Nay, R., & Tervo, K. (2003). Parenting behaviors in parents with anxiety disorders. Behaviour research and therapy , 41 (5), 541-554. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(02)00028-1 Tyler, M., & Iyengar, S. (2023). Learning to dislike your opponents: Political socialization in the era of polarization. American Political Science Review , 117 (1), 347-354. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000305542200048X U.S. Department of Justice Office of Public Affairs. (2025, June 16). After Two-Day Manhunt, Suspect Charged with Shooting Two Minnesota Lawmakers and Their Spouses [Press release]. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/after-two-day-manhunt-suspect-charged-shooting-two-minnesota-lawmakers-and-their-spouses Van Der Bruggen, C. O., Stams, G. J. J., & Bögels, S. M. (2008). Research review: The relation between child and parental anxiety and parental control: A meta‐analytic review. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry , 49 (12), 1257-1269. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2008.01898.x Van Ditmars, M. M. (2023). Political socialization, political gender gaps and the intergenerational transmission of left-right ideology. European Journal of Political Research , 62(1), 3–24. doi:10.1111/1475-6765.12517 Weinschenk, A., & Smith, K. (2024). Is political anxiety different than general anxiety? Politics and the Life Sciences , 43(2), 226–234. https://doi.org/10.1017/pls.2024.6 Werner, N. E. (2012). Do Hostile Attribution Biases in Children and Parents Predict Relationally Aggressive Behavior? The Journal of Genetic Psychology , 173(3), 221–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221325.2011.600357 Weston, R., & Gore Jr, P. A. (2006). A brief guide to structural equation modeling. The Counseling Psychologist , 34 (5), 719-751. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006286345 Whittaker, T. A., & Schumacker, R. E. (2022). A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling (5th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003044017 Williams, K.E., Ciarrochi, J. & Heaven, P.C.L. Inflexible Parents, Inflexible Kids: A 6-Year Longitudinal Study of Parenting Style and the Development of Psychological Flexibility in Adolescents (2012). Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 41, 1053–1066. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-012-9744-0 Wintemute, G. J., Velasquez, B., Robinson, S. L., Tomsich, E. A., Wright, M. A., & Shev, A. B. (2025a). The MAGA movement and political violence in 2024: findings from a nationally representative survey. Injury Epidemiology , 12 (1), 78. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40621-025-00633-6 Wintemute, G. J., Robinson, S. L., Crawford, A., Schleimer, J. P., Tancredi, D. J., Shev, A. B., ... & Cruz, S. S. (2025b). Views on Democracy and Political Violence in the United States in 2025: Findings from a Nationally Representative Survey . PsyArXiv. https://osf.io/download/bzah4/ Wolfe, S. E., McLean, K., & Pratt, T. C. (2017). I learned it by watching you: Legal socialization and the intergenerational transmission of legitimacy attitudes. British Journal of Criminology , 57 (5), 1123-1143. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azw038 Wolfowicz, M., Litmanovitz, Y., Weisburd, D., & Hasisi, B. (2021). Cognitive and behavioral radicalization: A systematic review of the putative risk and protective factors. Campbell Systematic Reviews , 17 (3), e1174. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1174 Xu, G., Bullock, A., Yang, P., & Liu, J. (2020). Psychological Control and Internalizing Problems: The Mediating Role of Mother-Child Relationship Quality. Parenting , 21 (2), 108–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295192.2020.1831295 Yoo, H., Feng, X. & Day, R.D. Adolescents’ Empathy and Prosocial Behavior in the Family Context: A Longitudinal Study. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 42, 1858–1872 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-012-9900-6 Zych, I., & Nasaescu, E. (2022). Is radicalization a family issue? A systematic review of family‐related risk and protective factors, consequences, and interventions against radicalization. Campbell Systematic Reviews , 18 (3), e1266. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1266 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-9382820","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":624494896,"identity":"8ed7ec81-79be-4139-aa09-0037387b6499","order_by":0,"name":"Melinda Westfall","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Lehigh University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Melinda","middleName":"","lastName":"Westfall","suffix":""},{"id":624494897,"identity":"8febc3cd-b437-4a30-8ff4-0e2f76f3e0bf","order_by":1,"name":"Deborah Laible","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Lehigh University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Deborah","middleName":"","lastName":"Laible","suffix":""},{"id":624494898,"identity":"481fd2af-0499-4c58-a368-e2066e37559d","order_by":2,"name":"Sarah Borowski","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Lehigh University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Sarah","middleName":"","lastName":"Borowski","suffix":""},{"id":624494899,"identity":"e11087e3-c71b-43ae-8c19-2439a8c85059","order_by":3,"name":"Danming An","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Lehigh University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Danming","middleName":"","lastName":"An","suffix":""},{"id":624494900,"identity":"6c2e6c24-8eaf-4d30-ae6e-b74f1e8d29f6","order_by":4,"name":"Rachael Burcker","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Lehigh University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Rachael","middleName":"","lastName":"Burcker","suffix":""},{"id":624494901,"identity":"69bcb0d9-a5bd-4d8f-b5ff-b7e1db4ca036","order_by":5,"name":"Michael Gill","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Lehigh University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Michael","middleName":"","lastName":"Gill","suffix":""},{"id":624494902,"identity":"9f1db1c7-a4f7-46e5-a7ed-c06cc84a9dea","order_by":6,"name":"Ziad Munson","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Lehigh University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ziad","middleName":"","lastName":"Munson","suffix":""},{"id":624494903,"identity":"03e9104f-d5ac-4fb3-8fa5-8369ab5f679a","order_by":7,"name":"Rochelle Frounfelker","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Lehigh University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Rochelle","middleName":"","lastName":"Frounfelker","suffix":""},{"id":624494904,"identity":"6b5e4d81-d667-4762-9da9-d76fc229a98b","order_by":8,"name":"Dominic Packer","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Lehigh University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Dominic","middleName":"","lastName":"Packer","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-04-10 20:08:14","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9382820/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9382820/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":107869961,"identity":"ad796b66-1be4-43f9-a14b-44083b844fcb","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-27 07:38:33","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":29685,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eHypothesized structural model.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9382820/v1/5d5955fb40a93cbccfdda50f.png"},{"id":107834032,"identity":"289589a0-3810-4797-bec2-5b7c85e7b75b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-26 15:42:37","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":37112,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eStructural equation model with standardized parameter estimates for direct effects. Effects shown are \u003cem\u003eβ \u003c/em\u003e(\u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e). *\u003cem\u003ep \u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt; .05, **\u003cem\u003ep \u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt; .01, ***\u003cem\u003ep \u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt; .001. Dotted lines indicate nonsignificant direct effects. Anxiety, support for political violence, and loneliness were controlled for reporter gender. Estimates were produced using 5,000 bootstrapped samples and maximum likelihood estimation.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9382820/v1/6f350de6ce44ff8ec98c47fd.png"},{"id":107872054,"identity":"fb22a801-8d57-4e1d-a77c-68c609ccac58","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-27 07:55:00","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":579756,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9382820/v1/f595649e-0131-48b1-ab63-36aeebf7ff84.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Adolescent support for political violence in conservative White families: the roles of parental anxiety and other risk factors","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eAdolescents growing up in the United States have witnessed rising political polarization and partisan animosity throughout the past decade (Fasching et al., 2024). Instances such as the January 6th insurrection, assassination attempts against Donald Trump during the 2024 presidential election, and the shooting of two Minnesota Democratic lawmakers in June 2025 have positioned violence as a pervasive component of the national political atmosphere (Singam, 2025; U.S. Department of Justice, 2025). In tandem with this, national survey results suggest that 34% of American adults believe that the use of political violence can be justified (Balz et al., 2022). In the U.S., far-right ideologies that endorse the use of violence often target psychological vulnerabilities like feelings of loneliness or anxiety as a means of radicalization (Reyna et al., 2022; Borum, 2014). As a critical period for the development of political belief systems and identity (Rekker et al., 2017), understanding individual and family-level risk factors for violent radicalization in adolescence may be integral to preventing future incidents of right-wing political violence. The present study sought to integrate theoretical perspectives on parenting and political radicalization to investigate the relation between parental anxiety and a variety of factors linked to adolescent political extremism in conservative White American families.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMany instances of political violence and domestic terrorism in recent U.S. history can be traced back to the growing popularity of right-wing populism and White racial identitarianism in conservative politics (Mondon \u0026amp; Winter, 2020a). Since the 2016 presidential election, far-right narratives have gained increasing dissemination through mainstream conservative media sources to their national viewerbase (Brown \u0026amp; Mondon, 2026; Thompson \u0026amp; Sengul, 2025). These narratives frequently highlight the victimization of White Americans at the hands of an elite liberal class or other political outgroups (Mondon \u0026amp; Winter, 2020b) and emphasize the urgent need to defend traditional White American cultural identity, including by violent means (Armaly et al., 2022; Haner et al., 2025). Perceived victimhood, grievance narratives, and White racial identitarianism have entrenched ties to violent extremism (Jensen et al., 2020; Armaly \u0026amp; Enders, 2024) and support for the use of political violence among \u0026ldquo;MAGA\u0026rdquo; Republicans poses a growing problem for the future of American democracy (Wintemute et al., 2025a). Although the majority likely do not endorse using violence as a means of political action (Wintemute et al., 2025b), White conservatives may currently be at elevated risk of exposure to extremist beliefs linked to political violence. As political violence gains normalization in conservative politics (Mondon \u0026amp; Winter, 2020a; Brown \u0026amp; Mondon, 2026), these ideas may also become increasingly integrated into the political socialization of adolescents in conservative White families (Dunn et al., 2022). Despite this, empirical work studying the political socialization practices of conservative White adults has been limited.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eTheoretical framework: risk factors for radicalization\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn line with ecological theories of development (Bronfenbrenner, 1994), radicalization occurs not only in the context of the national political climate, but also through proximal family influence (Beelmann, 2020; Zych \u0026amp; Nasaescu, 2022; Wolfowicz et al., 2021). The social-developmental model of radicalization characterizes political radicalization as a three-stage process in which a combination of risk and protective factors at the social, individual, and societal levels shape the likelihood of being radicalized by future events or crises (Beelmann, 2020). Under this framework, exposure to an imbalanced mix of risk and protective factors throughout childhood and adolescence compounds to create the psychological preconditions for extremist radicalization (Beelmann, 2020). As a result, family context may be an especially important consideration in the origins of radicalization due to its foundational ties to socialization and developmental processes related to social functioning, self-perceptions, and moral beliefs (Grusec, 2011). In particular, the influence wielded by parents may inform radicalization during adolescence and have enduring effects on political beliefs into adulthood (Zych \u0026amp; Nasaescu, 2022; Neundorf et al., 2013). Using a dyadic, cross-sectional design, the present study explored direct and indirect connections between parental anxiety, adolescent support for violent extremism, and three potential risk factors: parental radicalization, parental psychological control, and adolescent loneliness.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrevious research on radicalization has identified a number of family-related risk and protective factors, including parent extremism (Amit \u0026amp; Al Kafy, 2022; Zych \u0026amp; Nasaescu, 2022). In line with social learning theories, exposure to parents with extreme beliefs may have harmful effects on adolescent radicalization via direct value and belief transmission (Harpviken, 2020; Post, 2004). Parents provide some of adolescents\u0026rsquo; earliest models for political engagement (Cicognani et al., 2012) and the norms parents communicate about intergroup animosity and the acceptability of violence may influence adolescents\u0026rsquo; developing political beliefs (Borum, 2025; Međedović \u0026amp; Petrović, 2021). As a foundational source for children's moral and cultural values, parents also play an important role in communicating personal values and shaping adolescent attitudes that inform radicalization (L\u0026ouml;sel et al., 2020; Beelmann, 2020), including attitudes towards violence and rule of law (Wolfe et al., 2017).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOutside of parental beliefs, general parenting behavior may be another social-level risk factor for youth radicalization (L\u0026ouml;sel et al., 2018). Regarding protective effects, supportive parenting, positive parent-adolescent relationship quality, and parental involvement may decrease the likelihood of extremist radicalization and foster resilience to radicalizing influences (Zych \u0026amp; Nasaescu, 2022). In contrast, harsh and coercive parenting behavior and frequent conflicts between parents and adolescents in daily life may exacerbate adolescent mental health and vulnerability to radicalization (L\u0026ouml;sel et al., 2018; Wolfowicz et al., 2021; Kuhn, 2004). Adolescents with unsupportive or overly-controlling parents may be at greater risk for antisocial behaviors and the use of violence (\u0026Aacute;lvarez-Garc\u0026iacute;a et al., 2016). In turn, adolescents and young adults belonging to violent extremist political groups often report lacking adequate systems of family support and care (Schils \u0026amp; Verhage, 2017). Deficits in socioemotional abilities (e.g., empathy, perspective taking) caused by unempathetic and insensitive parenting may also make it more difficult for adolescents to understand and care about the experiences of others (L\u0026ouml;sel et al., 2007; Hazelbaker et al., 2022). These deficits may in turn place adolescents at greater risk for extremist radicalization by narratives that justify the use of violence by disregarding the humanity and emotional states of political outgroups (Feddes et al., 2015; Emmelkamp et al., 2020).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAt the individual level, excessive feelings of loneliness may also heighten adolescent vulnerability to radicalization (Opozda-Suder et al., 2025; Beelmann, 2020). Loneliness describes the feelings of distress or discomfort with the discrepancy between one\u0026rsquo;s actual and desired social relationships (Peplau \u0026amp; Perlman, 1982) and is closely related to the constructs of social isolation, social alienation, and feelings of belonging (Hughes et al., 2004; Seemann, 2022). Social information processing models (Spithoven et al., 2017) suggest that chronic feelings of loneliness may contribute to negative attribution biases that lead to elevated sensitivity to social rejection or exclusion (Maes \u0026amp; Vanhalst, 2025). In turn, extremist narratives often target psychological weaknesses such as loneliness and low self-esteem in order to indoctrinate youth seeking support and connection (Kruglanski et al., 2021; Borum, 2014; 2025). Loneliness may intensify the psychosocial need for belonging and heighten the appeal of social acceptance and positive group identity offered by radicalist movements (Di Cicco et al., 2025).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMulticausal frameworks of youth radicalization emphasize the compounding and interconnected effects of many different risk factors in an adolescent\u0026rsquo;s life (Beelmann, 2020). Concurrent risk factors can have interrelated effects and may be individually linked to other social environmental factors (Wolfowicz et al., 2021). For example, parent extremism, harsh parenting, and adolescent loneliness are three risk factors that also have known associations with parental anxiety (Trip et al., 2019; McCurdy et al., 2022; Mun, 2022). However, research into the link between parental anxiety and adolescent radialization has been extremely limited. In the present study, we sought to identify concurrent associations between parental anxiety, these interrelated risk factors, and adolescent extremism in order to expand our understanding of parent influence on the risk of youth radicalization in conservative White families.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eParental anxiety\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eOne reason why parental anxiety may hold relevance to adolescent radicalization is its association with radical beliefs and the use of political violence (Trip et al., 2019). The belief that political outgroups pose an existential threat to the ingroup is often at the core of violent extremist narratives (Pauwels \u0026amp; Heylen, 2020). Intensifying anxieties of economic ruin, physical assault, and cultural replacement are the motivation and moral justification for much of the political violence carried out by far-right groups in the U.S. (Salmela \u0026amp; Von Scheve, 2017; Reyna et al., 2022). As a result, groups and individuals who promote these beliefs often capitalize off of the existing anxieties White Americans have about the future by offering an actionable (though violent) political solution (Isom Scott \u0026amp; Andersen, 2020). Many narratives, such as fears about White students being unable to get into college or find jobs due to DEI policies, may be especially salient for White parents worried about the opportunities that will be afforded to their children (Iyer, 2022). As such, experiencing high levels of anxiety may exacerbate conservative White parents\u0026rsquo; propensity for extremism, and in turn expose adolescents to these violent belief systems.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBeyond its connections to radical beliefs, parental anxiety may also be connected to youth radicalization due to its associations with harsh and negative parenting behaviors (McCurdy et al., 2022; van der Bruggen et al., 2008). Family Systems Theory suggests that because a family operates as an interconnected system in which each member both influences and is influenced by the others (Calatrava et al., 2022), a parent experiencing high levels of anxiety may have repercussions for all other family members (Gavazzi \u0026amp; Lim, 2023). In line with this, research indicates that parents who frequently experience elevated levels of state anxiety may be more likely to engage in restrictive or controlling parenting practices (McCurdy et al., 2022; Segrin et al., 2013). One form of negative parenting is psychological control, characterized by the use of rejection, invalidation, and emotional manipulation by parents towards their children (Barber et al., 2002). These behaviors may be motivated by parents\u0026rsquo; anxiety and desire for control over their environment, including the emotional states of their children (Soenens \u0026amp; Vansteenkiste, 2010; McCurdy et al., 2022). As such, highly anxious parents may find it more difficult to regulate their emotional and physiological response to daily stressors (McCurdy et al., 2022), may have more restricted mental resources available to them when interacting with their adolescent children (Schrock \u0026amp; Woodruff-Borden, 2010) and may engage in more controlling and coercive behavior.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurthermore, the associations between parental anxiety, parental radicalization, and harsh parenting behavior may be interconnected. A growing body of work has suggested that parenting behaviors may be tied to parents\u0026rsquo; political attitudes (Feinberg et al., 2020; Kerry \u0026amp; Murray, 2018). At their core, many far-right ideologies are grounded in preferences for authoritarian social structures, conformity, and adherence to traditional values and customs (Jost et al., 2018). Restricting expressions of personal feelings may be a means through which parents attempt to instill deference for authority and compliance with rigid rule systems in their adolescent children (Soenens \u0026amp; Vansteenkiste, 2010). Holding radical beliefs supporting the use of violent tactics to achieve political goals may also require parents to regularly minimize the psychological needs and emotional experiences of political outgroups (Schroeder \u0026amp; Epley, 2020), which could have implications for their behavior in authority dynamics like the parent-child relationship. Although the exact mechanisms through which violent political beliefs may affect parental psychological control are currently unknown, the deficits in socioemotional functionality associated with viewing violence as acceptable (Frick \u0026amp; Viding, 2009) suggest that parents may partially transmit radical beliefs through their social behavior and disregard for their children\u0026rsquo;s autonomy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn addition to its connections with parent-level risk factors for youth radicalization, parental anxiety has also been directly linked to individual-level risk factors like adolescent loneliness (Mun, 2022). Theories of attachment and Belsky\u0026rsquo;s (1984) Determinants of Parenting Model support the idea that elevated levels of anxiety can interfere with parents\u0026rsquo; ability to provide adequate warmth and support to their children (Epkins \u0026amp; Harper, 2016; Schrock \u0026amp; Woodruff-Borden, 2010) and cause parents to be more likely to engage in criticizing or rejecting behavior towards their adolescent children (Crosby Budinger et al., 2013). In turn, parental anxiety has been directly linked to adolescents\u0026rsquo; feelings of loneliness (Mun, 2022). Lack of adequate support from parents can also contribute to feelings of alienation and social disconnection in adolescents (Segrin et al., 2013; Hair et al., 2009), both of which are closely tied to the concept of loneliness (Hughes et al., 2004; Seemann, 2022). Parental anxiety has further been linked to a number of parenting factors associated with adolescent loneliness, including low warmth and parent-adolescent conflict (Mounts et al., 2006; Liu et al., 2015).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn line with this, past work has identified direct concurrent links between psychological control and adolescent loneliness (Koopmans, 2023). For example, refusal by parents to accept and support the emotional states of their children may contribute to feelings of rejection and loneliness in adolescents (Rowe et al., 2015). Controlling parenting may also foster feelings of distrust in others in adolescents (Rohner \u0026amp; Smith, 2019). In turn, experiences of parental rejection and the lack of modelling adaptive social functioning may inhibit adolescents\u0026rsquo; ability to form positive peer relationships, contributing to further experiences of loneliness and social alienation (Wu et al., 2022). In support of this, past findings suggest that parental control may mediate the negative effects of parental anxiety on adolescent internalizing outcomes (Emerson et al., 2019). Loneliness may make adolescents less sensitive to the emotions and well-being of others, leading to an increased propensity for aggression and heightened support for the use of radical political violence (Opozda-Suder et al., 2025). Additionally, lonely adolescents who lack supportive family relationships may not have an adequate social support system to intervene during the radicalization process (Sporer \u0026amp; Buxton, 2024). Therefore, parenting factors that negatively affect parent-child relationship quality (e.g., parental anxiety, use of psychological control) may contribute to individual-level risk factors like loneliness that place youth at greater risk of radicalization (Borum, 2025).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eThe present study\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe aim of the current study was to investigate adolescent extremism in conservative White families by integrating existing frameworks and exploring potential relationships between parent-level factors and adolescent support for political violence. Based on the theoretical perspectives and literature reviewed above, we investigated direct links between conservative White parents\u0026rsquo; anxiety and adolescent support for radical violence, as well as the indirect roles of three risk-factors: parental radicalization, parental psychological control, and adolescent loneliness (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn addition to these three single-mediator indirect pathways, we also examined three potential multi-mediator indirect effect pathways from parental anxiety to adolescent radicalization. The first multi-mediator indirect pathway examined accounted for the link between parental radicalization and parental psychological control. The second featured the link between parental psychological control and adolescent loneliness. The final multi-mediator indirect pathway estimated associations between all three risk factor variables, from parental radicalization to parental psychological control, and then to adolescent loneliness. Prior to our analysis, we formulated the following hypotheses:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eH1.\u003c/em\u003e Parental anxiety would be positively associated with parental radicalization, adolescent report of parental psychological control, adolescent loneliness, and adolescent radicalization.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eH2.\u003c/em\u003e Parental radicalization, adolescent report of parental psychological control, and adolescent loneliness would be positively associated with adolescent radicalization.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eH3.\u003c/em\u003e Parent radicalization would be positively directly associated with parental psychological control, and parent psychological control would be positively directly associated with adolescent loneliness.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eH4.\u003c/em\u003e Parental anxiety would have positive indirect effects on adolescent radicalization through its associations with the risk factors of parental radicalization, parental psychological control, and adolescent loneliness.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eH5.\u003c/em\u003e The association between parental anxiety on adolescent radicalization would be indirectly explained by three distinct multi-mediator pathways: the effects of parental radicalization on parental psychological control, the effects of parental psychological control on adolescent loneliness, and the sequential association of all three risk factors.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eParticipants and procedure\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData was taken from a broader project assessing risk factors associated with susceptibility to right-wing extremist political beliefs among White adolescents with conservative parents living in the United States. The data used in this study was collected in late December 2024 and early January 2025. The sample contained online survey responses from 413 White American parent-adolescent dyads. All parents included in the final dataset self-described as being politically conservative. Political conservatism was determined using a single item that asked parents to rate their beliefs on a 7-point Likert scale where 1 = \u0026ldquo;Extremely Liberal\u0026rdquo;, 4 = \u0026ldquo;Moderate\u0026rdquo;, and 7 = \u0026ldquo;Extremely Conservative.\u0026quot; Only parents who selected 5, 6, or 7 were invited to participate. Parents (\u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e = 413; 65.9% female) reported a median annual household income of $70,000. Adolescents\u0026rsquo; (\u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e = 413) average age was 15.28 years old and 45.5% of adolescents self-reported as female. Two adolescents identified as a gender other than male or female\u003csup\u003e\u003csup\u003e[1]\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Although adolescent ages ranged from 12 to 18 years old, the vast majority (86.2%) of adolescents fell within the concentrated age range of 14 to 17 years old.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSurvey responses were collected using the third-party sampling platform Forthright. Surveys were distributed to parents based on whether parents met the following criteria: English speaking, U.S. resident, White, non-Hispanic, self-identifying as politically conservative, and the parent of an adolescent child between 12 and 18 years old who lives in their household. After consenting to participate in the survey with their adolescent, parents were asked for the age and race of their child. Parents who reported that their adolescent was White and between the ages of 12 and 18 years old were permitted to continue with the survey. The parent-report portion of the survey took approximately 20 minutes to complete. After finishing the parent items, parents were instructed to pass their device to their adolescent child and to leave the room. After assenting to participate, adolescents answered the final portion of the survey which took approximately 15 minutes to complete. Multiple attention checks were included in both portions of the survey and dyads that failed more than one check were excluded from the dataset. Included in the adolescent survey items were questions designed to verify respondent age. Dyads were jointly compensated a total of $10.67 for completion of both the parent and adolescent portions of the survey. This project was approved by the Internal Review Board (IRB) prior to data collection (2252261-8).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMeasures\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eState anxiety\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParents completed the four-item state anxiety subscale of the Mini-DASS (Monteiro et al., 2023). Participants rated items concerning experiences of anxiety over the past week (e.g., \u0026ldquo;I felt scared without any good reason\u0026rdquo;) on a four-point Likert scale ranging from 0\u0026thinsp;= \u0026ldquo;Did not apply to me at all\u0026rdquo; to 3\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026rdquo;Applied to me very much, or most of the time.\u0026quot; Past work has suggested that experiences of transitory, state-level anxiety may be more closely tied to political perceptions than dispositional or trait anxiety (Weinschenk \u0026amp; Smith, 2024). Adapted from the DASS-21 (Lovibond \u0026amp; Lovibond, 1995), this scale has shown acceptable reliability and validity in English-speaking adult samples (Monteiro et al., 2023). Total scores ranged from 0 to 12, with 12 indicating the greatest level of anxiety.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSupport for political violence\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParents and adolescents each separately completed the Radicalist Intentions Scale (RIS; Moskalenko \u0026amp; McCauley, 2009). This four-item scale was designed to capture willingness to engage in illegal or violent political action (\u0026ldquo;I would continue to support an organization that fights for my group\u0026rsquo;s political and legal rights even if the organization sometimes resorts to violence\u0026rdquo;). Responses were captured using a seven-point Likert scale where 1 = \u0026ldquo;Strongly Disagree\u0026rdquo; and 7 = \u0026ldquo;Strongly Agree.\u0026quot; The scale was originally validated using a sample of American young adults (Moskalenko \u0026amp; McCauley, 2009) and has since been used with samples of White and European adolescents (Bliesener et al., 2021; Opozda-Suder et al., 2025). Higher scores indicate greater support for violent political action.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePerceived parental psychological control\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdolescents completed the eight-item PCS-YSR developed by Barber (1996). This scale measures adolescent perception of their parents\u0026rsquo; use of psychological control with items such as \u0026ldquo;My parent is a person who is always trying to change how I feel or think about things\u0026rdquo; answered on a three-point Likert scale where 1 = \u0026quot;Not like me,\u0026quot; 2 = \u0026quot;Somewhat like me,\u0026quot; and 3 = \u0026quot;A lot like me.\u0026quot; Adolescents were instructed to think of the parent they were taking the survey with while answering each item. This measure has been previously validated in samples of White American adolescents (Bean et al., 2003). Higher scores indicated greater levels of perceived parental psychological control.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLoneliness\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdolescents completed four items from the UCLA Loneliness Scale, a shortened version of the original 20-item scale (Version 3; Russell, 1996; Matthew et al., 2019). Items asked questions such as \u0026ldquo;How often do you feel alone?\u0026rdquo; which were answered using a four-point Likert scale where 0 = \u0026ldquo;Never\u0026rdquo;, 1 = \u0026ldquo;Rarely\u0026rdquo;, 2 = \u0026ldquo;Sometimes\u0026rdquo;, and 3 = \u0026ldquo;Always.\u0026quot; Responses were added together with total scores ranging from 0 to 12, with 12 indicating the greatest level of perceived loneliness.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAnalytic plan\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePreliminary analyses conducted in SPSS v.29.0.1 included descriptive statistics and Pearson\u0026rsquo;s correlations to assess the associations between variables. A sensitivity analysis was conducted in R v.4.5.3 in order to identify the smallest effects able to be detected by the hypothesized model. Assessment of all models was done in MPlus v.8.11 (Muthen \u0026amp; Muthen, 2017). Each scale included in the analysis was estimated as a latent variable, with scale items used as observed indicators (Schumacker \u0026amp; Lomax, 2010). In order to account for measurement error and to assess potential issues with model specification, a measurement model of the five latent variables was tested prior to the hypothesized structural model (Whittaker \u0026amp; Schumacker, 2022). Model fit was evaluated according to the following \u003cem\u003ea priori\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ecriteria: nonsignificant \u0026chi;\u0026sup2; result; comparative fit index (CFI) and Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) values greater than .95; root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA) values less than .05; and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) values less than .08 (Weston \u0026amp; Gore, 2006). Maximum likelihood (ML) estimation with 5,000 bootstrapped samples (Hayes, 2012) was used to obtain standardized estimates of the pathways depicted in the hypothesized model (Muthen \u0026amp; Muthen, 2017). Significance of direct and indirect effects was assessed according to asymmetric 95% confidence intervals (CIs) that did not contain zero in order to account for potential non-normality in the dataset (Struben et al., 2015).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003csup\u003e[1]\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e Supplemental analyses conducted excluding these two adolescents found identical model results.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eSensitivity analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo identify the smallest effect sizes the present study would be capable of detecting, a Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis was conducted. Results indicated that the current sample size (\u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;413) provides 80% power to detect a minimum overall serial indirect effect of .0028 This result corresponds to detecting average standardized path coefficients of .23 between each variable in the sequence.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eDescriptive statistics and correlations\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSee Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e for means, standard deviations, skewness, kurtosis, and Pearson\u0026rsquo;s correlations of the observed variables. Overall, parents reported moderate levels of anxiety and low levels of support for political violence. Adolescents reported relatively high levels of loneliness, moderately low perceived psychological control, and low support for political violence.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDescriptive statistics and bivariate correlations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"8\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eVariable\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e1.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e2.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e3.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e4.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e5.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e6.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e7.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. Parent Anxiety\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2. Parent Radicalization\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.29***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3. Psychological Control\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.36***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.24***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4. Adolescent Loneliness\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.35***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.08\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.42***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5. Adolescent Radicalization\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.27***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.62***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.36***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.21***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6. Parent Gender\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.03\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.19***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.06\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.03\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.10*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7. Adolescent Gender\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.02\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.03\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.13**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.07\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.04\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMean\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.17\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.50\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.39\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.29\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.41\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.34\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.54\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.69\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.40\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.38\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.14\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.49\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.47\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.50\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSkewness\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.50\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.75\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.47\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.77\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.68\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.15\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eKurtosis\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.83\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.39\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.52\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-1.07\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.48\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-1.54\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-1.99\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"8\"\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote.\u003c/em\u003e *\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.05, **\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.01, ***\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001. \u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e = 413 parent\u0026minus;adolescent dyads\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStructural equation model\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAssessment of our initial measurement model showed acceptable fit to the data across the majority of the \u003cem\u003ea priori\u003c/em\u003e fit indices and approached acceptable fit for the TLI (\u003cem\u003eχ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026sup2; (242)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;471.49, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001; \u003cem\u003eCFI\u003c/em\u003e = .954; \u003cem\u003eTLI\u003c/em\u003e = .947; \u003cem\u003eRMSEA\u003c/em\u003e = .048; \u003cem\u003eSRMR\u003c/em\u003e = .041). Additionally, all observed indicators related significantly to their respective latent variables. As a result, we proceeded with the assessment of the hypothesized structural model without modifications (McDonald \u0026amp; Ho, 2002). The structural model similarly showed acceptable fit across three of the five \u003cem\u003ea priori\u003c/em\u003e fit indices and approached acceptable fit for the TLI (\u003cem\u003eχ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026sup2; (287)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;532.54, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001; \u003cem\u003eCFI\u003c/em\u003e = .951; \u003cem\u003eTLI\u003c/em\u003e = .945; \u003cem\u003eRMSEA\u003c/em\u003e = .046; \u003cem\u003eSRMR\u003c/em\u003e = .044).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnxiety, adolescent loneliness, and radicalization were controlled for reporter gender as past literature has identified distinct gender differences in mental health (Afifi, 2007; Maes et al., 2019) and endorsement of political violence (Bardall et al., 2020; Duindam et al., 2025). Gender was covaried for in analyses by including paths from reporter gender to adolescent loneliness (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e = \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.10, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e = .04, \u003cem\u003e95% CI\u003c/em\u003e [-.19, \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.004]), adolescent radicalization (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.10, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e = .04, \u003cem\u003e95% CI\u003c/em\u003e [.03, .18]), parental radicalization (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.21, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e = .05, \u003cem\u003e95% CI\u003c/em\u003e [.10, .31]), and parental anxiety (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e = \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.03, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e = .05, 95% CI [-.14, .08]). Results indicated that girls reported higher levels of loneliness and males reported higher levels of radicalization for both parents and adolescents. Parent gender did not have a significant relationship with parental anxiety. Adolescent age was not included as a demographic covariate as results showed no significant correlation between age and any of the adolescent reported variables.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eDirect effects\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn partial support of H1, our results revealed significant direct links between parental anxiety and parental radicalization, adolescent loneliness, and parental psychological control (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e) such that greater parental anxiety was associated with greater scores in all three risk factor variables. However, contrary to our predictions, the direct link between parental anxiety and adolescent support for political violence was nonsignificant and slightly negative. With regards to H2, greater levels of parental radicalization and parental psychological control were each positively associated with adolescent radicalization. This finding aligns with our hypotheses and supports the characterization of these variables as potential risk factors for adolescent extremism. The direct link between adolescent loneliness and adolescent radicalization was marginally nonsignificant. However, the nonsignificant effect was positively-skewed, in line with our predictions. In full support of H3, we found positive direct links between parental psychological control and the two other risk factors, parental radicalization and adolescent loneliness.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eIndirect effects\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe total indirect effect (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.34, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e = .06, \u003cem\u003e95% CI\u003c/em\u003e [.23, .47]) of parental anxiety on adolescent radicalization slightly exceeded the total effect (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.31, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e = .06, \u003cem\u003e95% CI\u003c/em\u003e [.19, .42]), likely due to the negatively-skewed nonsignificant direct effect. In accordance with H4, analysis revealed that the relation between parental anxiety and adolescent radicalization was indirectly explained by the positive effects of parental radicalization, psychological control, and adolescent loneliness (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). All three single-mediator indirect pathways were significant and positive. Parental anxiety was associated with greater levels of parental radicalization, psychological control, and adolescent loneliness, and, in turn, those three variables were positively linked to adolescent radicalization.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStandardized indirect effects on adolescent support for political violence.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIndirect Pathway\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e95% CI\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eParent Anxiety \u0026rarr; Parent RIS\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.215\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.047\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[.131, .313]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eParent Anxiety \u0026rarr; Psychological Control\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.076\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.034\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[.021, .154]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eParent Anxiety \u0026rarr; Adolescent Loneliness\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.024\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.015\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[.001, .059]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eParent Anxiety \u0026rarr; Parent RIS \u0026rarr; Psychological Control\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.010\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.005\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[.003, .026]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eParent Anxiety \u0026rarr; Psychological Control \u0026rarr; Adolescent Loneliness\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.013\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.007\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[.001, .030]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eParent Anxiety \u0026rarr; Parent RIS \u0026rarr; Psychological Control \u0026rarr; Adolescent Loneliness\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.002\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[.000, .006]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote.\u003c/em\u003e Estimates were produced using 5,000 bootstrapped samples and maximum likelihood estimation\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn partial support of H5, two of the three sequential indirect pathways from parental anxiety to adolescent radicalization tested in this model were significant. The first significant multi-mediator indirect pathway accounted for the link between parental radicalization and parental psychological control. The second significant multi-mediator indirect pathway included the association between parental psychological control and adolescent loneliness. Contrary to our predictions, we did not find significant indirect effects via the three-mediator pathway which accounted for all three risk factor variables.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe goal of the present study was to examine cross-sectional relationships between parental anxiety and support for political violence among conservative White U.S. parents and their adolescent children. We hypothesized that parental anxiety would be linked with both greater adolescent radicalization through indirect pathways via the mediating variables of parental radicalization, adolescent report of parental psychological control, and adolescent loneliness. Using an integrated approach, this study provides new insight into how parent-level and individual-level factors relate to White adolescent support for violent extremism. These findings call for greater focus on family relational dynamics as potential risk factors for radicalization among White American youth.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eParental anxiety and risk factors for radicalization\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe current study centered around investigating factors within family socialization environments that may place adolescents at greater risk for developing politically violent beliefs. We identified associations between parental anxiety and three known risk factors for adolescent radicalization. Models of youth radicalization emphasize the compounding effects of multiple risk and protective influences in forming the psychological basis for extremism, especially with regard to proximal social influences (Beelmann, 2020; Borum, 2025; Di Cicco et al., 2025). In alignment with perspectives on family political socialization (McDevitt \u0026amp; Chaffee, 2002), these frameworks support that parent socialization and parental impact on socioemotional and psychosocial well-being play an important role in shaping how adolescents perceive and feel towards political violence (Zych \u0026amp; Nasaescu, 2022; Emmelkamp et al., 2020). As rhetoric justifying the use of violence gains popularity in mainstream conservative media (Brown \u0026amp; Mondon, 2026; Thompson \u0026amp; Sengul, 2025) and support for political violence becomes increasingly prevalent among White conservatives (Wintemute et al., 2025a), understanding the influence White conservative parents may have on extremist attitudes in their adolescent children is increasingly important.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn line with past findings on social- and individual-level risk factors (Zych \u0026amp; Nasaescu, 2022), we found that parent reports of experiencing higher levels of state anxiety over the past week were linked to higher levels of parental radicalization, adolescent report of parental psychological control, and adolescent loneliness. Our results also align with past work demonstrating gender differences in loneliness (Maes et al., 2019) and political violence attitudes (Bardall et al., 2020; Duindam et al., 2025), as female participants reported less support for political violence and female adolescents reported greater loneliness compared to males. Our findings suggest that, in conservative White families, parental anxiety may be a common factor tied to multiple known sources of risk for youth radicalization. In light of the growing threat posed by violent far-right extremism and White nationalism in the U.S. (Haner et al., 2025), the results of our study may have implications for considering youth radicalization as a family process and integrating parent-level level factors in the design of future interventions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOur findings demonstrated that parents with higher weekly levels of state anxiety were more likely to endorse the use of violence against political opponents. Many of the far-right narratives platformed by mainstream conservative media are specifically tailored to exploit feelings of anxiety and fear among White conservatives (Salmela \u0026amp; Von Scheve, 2017; Reyna et al., 2022; Thompson \u0026amp; Sengul, 2025). Conspiracies like the \u0026ldquo;Great Replacement\u0026rdquo; theory, stories of illegal immigrants committing violent crimes against White women and children, and concerns over White applicants being passed over for college admissions or employment opportunities are crafted to evoke anxiety in White parents concerned with the future of their children and family (Obaidi et al., 2022; Skogan, 1995; Iyer, 2022). These fear-mongering narratives simultaneously intensify White Americans\u0026rsquo; existing anxieties while also bluntly alluding to a political solution using violent means (Isom Scott \u0026amp; Andersen, 2020). As such, elevated levels of anxiety may place White parents at greater risk for adopting radical beliefs and exposing their children to related ideas. Consideration of this link may be especially relevant to understanding violent extremism in White American youth.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eResults from our analysis corroborate past studies in finding that adolescents whose parents scored higher in anxiety were more likely to report experiences of psychological control (Apsley \u0026amp; Padilla-Walker, 2020; Xu et al., 2020). Cultural norms in White American families typically frame growing independence and autonomy as central tasks during adolescence (Benito-Gomez et al., 2020). Past studies have linked restrictive parenting to maladaptive adjustment in White adolescents (Harris-McKoy, 2016), potentially as a result of violating cultural expectations around autonomy-granting in White American families (Beyers et al., 2025). Due to the added stress caused by feelings of anxiety, anxious White parents may have fewer mental and emotional resources to put towards conforming to norms about supporting adolescent autonomy and volition (Schrock \u0026amp; Woodruff-Borden, 2010; Costa et al., 2019). Heightened anxiety may also aggravate parents\u0026rsquo; needs to feel \u0026ldquo;in-control\u0026rdquo; of their environment and family, and thus contribute to attempts at managing the behaviors and emotions of their adolescents (Soenens \u0026amp; Vansteenkiste, 2010). As a result, parental anxiety may contribute to a family emotional climate in which adolescents are taught to refrain from honest emotional expression, obey authority rigidly, and disregard the emotional needs of others (Burstein et al., 2010).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe also found direct links between parental anxiety and adolescent loneliness. Beyond increased psychological control, parental anxiety may also simply impair parents\u0026rsquo; emotional availability and support capacity (Epkins \u0026amp; Harper, 2016). At a sociocognitive level, anxiety can inhibit the accurate appraisal of others\u0026rsquo; emotional states (Baez et al., 2023) and restrict emotional processing necessary for social functioning abilities like empathy and perspective taking (Nair et al., 2024). Anxious parents may have greater difficulty recognizing and appropriately responding to the immediate emotional needs of their children, which can have detrimental effects on adolescent socioemotional well-being (Gondoli \u0026amp; Silverberg, 1997; McCurdy et al., 2022). Adolescents with more overwhelmed, inattentive, or emotionally disconnected parents may experience greater internalizing symptoms and other mental health challenges (Sofrona \u0026amp; Giannakopoulos, 2024), which may further amplify feelings of loneliness (Hall-Lande et al., 2007). Alternatively, anxious parents may model behaviors like avoidance, rumination, or reactivity and as a result influence adolescent proneness to social withdrawal and loneliness (Turner et al., 2003; Sege et al., 2018).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eIndirect pathways to adolescent radicalization\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlthough we did not find a direct association, our results revealed that parental anxiety was indirectly associated with adolescent radicalization through its links to multiple risk factors. We found that increases in parents\u0026rsquo; support for political violence partially explained the link between heightened parental anxiety and greater adolescent radicalization. This finding aligns with existing frameworks of political socialization that identify parents as among the most important proximal sources for political information during development (McDevitt \u0026amp; Chaffee, 2002). In turn, studies of radicalization have likewise identified having an extremist family member as a risk factor for radicalization (Zych \u0026amp; Nasaescu, 2022). Parents and adolescents tend to express similar political beliefs and attitudes linked to extremism, including social dominance orientation, right-wing authoritarianism, and affective polarization (Duriez \u0026amp; Soenens, 2009; Tyler \u0026amp; Iyengar, 2023). Some of the agreement between parent and adolescent ideological beliefs can likely be traced back to means of direct political socialization, such as through explicit conversations about political topics or the parent\u0026rsquo;s political engagement (Kim \u0026amp; Stattin, 2019). Adolescents can also pick up on their parents\u0026rsquo; political attitudes environmentally, such as through the types of media the parent consumes and the social contexts parents expose their children to (e.g., homeschooling, attending church; Tedin, 1974). However, it is unknown whether these means of socializing conventional political beliefs are also accurate to the transmission of extremism within the family. While the present findings represent an important step towards understanding the integrated psychological processes associated with radicalization in the family context, there are a wide array of other potential socialization pathways to be studied in future research.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eResults from our model indicated that parental anxiety was also indirectly linked to adolescent radicalization via higher levels of parental psychological control. Past work has supported that negative parenting and parent-child conflict may place adolescents at greater risk for extremist radicalization (Zych \u0026amp; Nasaescu, 2022). This connection may partly be attributable to the inverse relationship between negative parenting and supportive parenting, a known protective factor against youth radicalization (L\u0026ouml;sel et al., 2018; Marsden \u0026amp; Lee, 2022). Parental support may make adolescents less vulnerable to extremist narratives that target unmet psychosocial needs in order to garner support for radicalist action (Amit \u0026amp; Al Kafy, 2022; Harpviken, 2020). In contrast, psychologically controlling parents may be less likely to support adolescents in recontextualizing emotions or perspectives concerning the legitimacy of violence as a means of accomplishing political goals by providing alternative viewpoints. Rather, psychologically controlling parents likely curate a family emotional environment in which adolescents are expected to censor their emotional instincts, obey authority, and adhere to unfair or unreasonable rules (Barber \u0026amp; Harmon, 2002). Children of controlling parents have also been shown to have reduced psychological flexibility (Williams et al., 2012) and poorer emotion regulation (Qian et al., 2022). These experiences in the family context and subsequent developmental consequences may prime adolescents for affiliation with radical groups (Lavi \u0026amp; Slone, 2012; Borum et al., 2025). By consistently invalidating their children\u0026rsquo;s emotions and modelling unempathic behavior, parents may make adolescents less sensitive to the emotional suffering of others (Yoo et al., 2013), and as a result more willing to engage in violence. As such, the present finding is a novel contribution regarding psychological control as a risk factor for adolescent radicalization, and suggests that this effect may be influenced by parental anxiety.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile we did not find a direct relationship between adolescent loneliness and adolescent radicalization, our results also showed that parental anxiety was indirectly linked to adolescent radicalization through its positive relationship with adolescent loneliness. Similar to the effects of psychological control, experiences of loneliness during adolescence may result in social and emotional deficiencies that can exacerbate vulnerability to violent radicalization (Borum, 2014; 2025; Di Cicco et al., 2025). Loneliness caused by parental inattention or rejection can have negative impacts on adolescent social functioning in peer environments, leading to greater risk for experiences of peer rejection and thus contributing to further loneliness (Wu et al., 2022). Regardless of the inciting mechanisms, loneliness and the lack of a strong social support network are well known risk factors for radicalization during adolescence (Zych \u0026amp; Nasaescu, 2022). In line with theoretical frameworks of radicalization (Di Cicco et al., 2025), loneliness has also been linked to a number of other emotional and mental health symptoms that could have compounding effects on adolescent vulnerability to radicalization, such low self-esteem (Lyyra et al., 2021) and a lack of belongingness (Beattie et al., 2024). For example, Opozda-Suder et al. (2025) found that loneliness mediated the effects of low self-esteem on support for political violence. For youth who feel lonely or isolated, extremist political movements offer attractive incentives by promising a supportive community and a positive identity to take pride in (Amit \u0026amp; Al Kafy, 2022). Given the growing epidemic of mental health and internalizing problems among adolescents (Blomqvist et al., 2019), our findings align with past research and suggest that loneliness may be an effective intervention target for preventing radicalization (Jugl et al., 2020).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs an extension of these findings, we additionally found two multi-mediator indirect connections linking parental anxiety with adolescent radicalization. While the cross-sectional nature of our study limits our ability to interpret sequential effects, theoretical frameworks and past empirical studies support the possibility that these effects may represent pathways from parental anxiety to youth radicalization. While we did not find a significant effect for our three-mediator pathway, our results suggest that these effects represent an integrated family socialization process that may involve multiple simultaneous mechanisms through which parents influence adolescents' support for radical violence.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFirst, we found a significant indirect link between parental anxiety and adolescent extremism through the effects of parental radicalization on psychological control. Our finding of a significant relationship between parental radicalization and psychological control is a novel contribution to our understanding of the effects of radical beliefs on family functioning. Cognitive information processing theories have suggested that behaviors may be shaped by how we interpret social cues and interactions (Clore et al., 2014). Chronic exposure to hostile or extremist political ideas that dehumanize outgroups or decenter taboos concerning violence and may reinforce threat-based interpretations (Keene et al., 2017). Therefore, holding radical beliefs may make parents more prone to hostile attributions towards their children, which has been linked to greater use of relational aggression among parents (Werner, 2012). Theories of the antecedents of parenting behavior have also argued that psychological control may be motivated by unmet internal needs (Soenens \u0026amp; Vansteenkiste, 2010). These internal issues may be exacerbated by the connection between violent radicalization and poorer psychological well-being (Beelmann, 2020). Right-wing extremist beliefs may also be associated with greater preference for traditional social hierarchies and customs (Jost et al., 2018). Parents may attempt to instill deference for authority and compliance with rigid rule systems in their adolescent children by exerting control over adolescents\u0026rsquo; emotional expressions and behavior (Soenens \u0026amp; Vansteenkiste, 2010). As a result, parenting behavior may be a means through which parents transmit radical beliefs to their adolescent children.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecond, we found an indirect pathway between parental anxiety and adolescent radicalization through the effects of parental psychological control on adolescent loneliness. This result aligns with past findings showing that parental control may mediate the detrimental effects of parental anxiety on adolescent internalizing outcomes (Emerson et al., 2019), or may even directly induce loneliness (Koopmans, 2023). Components of psychological control, such as parental rejection, love withdrawal, and emotional invalidation, may heighten adolescent distrust of others and emotional instability (Rohner \u0026amp; Smith, 2019; Mendo-L\u0026aacute;zaro et al., 2019) and as a result place them at greater risk of loneliness (Rowe et al., 2015; Buecker et al., 2024). These elements of psychological control may also negatively impact adolescent social competence and thus contribute to feelings of loneliness due to maladaptive peer functioning (Wu et al., 2022). Adolescents who experience being rejected or manipulated by their parents may be more distrusting of others or have negative self-beliefs that impair social functioning (Rohner \u0026amp; Smith, 2019). In turn, frameworks of radicalization have identified these psychological vulnerabilities as critical risk factors for youth extremism (Borum, 2025; Tirkkonen \u0026amp; Tietjen, 2025).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eLimitations\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe present study featured both strengths and limitations. We utilized a dyadic design, allowing us to capture both adolescent and parent perceptions. Having the perspectives of both parents and adolescents strengthens the validity of our results and the inferences we can make using these findings. However, the use of a third-party panel provider through which parents recruited their own children as study participants may have had implications for motivational and compliance dynamics that are relevant to family processes and politically sensitive attitudes. However, the correlations between parent and adolescent political outcomes are comparable to other dyadic studies using alternative methods (Duriez \u0026amp; Soenens, 2009; Van Ditmars, 2023). Beyond this possible drawback, anonymous online data collection offers multiple benefits as a methodological approach. For example, our methods allowed us to collect responses from participants across multiple major regions of the continental U.S., and also minimized potential social desirability effects from the presence of an in-person experimenter when responding to questions about extremist or taboo beliefs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnother limitation of the present study is that the data available was collected at a single time point, which limits our ability to determine the directionality of effects. As such, future studies using longitudinal designs will be critical to further exploring the effects of parental anxiety on risk factors for radicalization, and how these dynamics play out over time. It is also important to note that the measure of radicalization used in this study is designed to capture hypothetical support for the use of political violence. As a result, we are unable to ascertain whether the beliefs about extremist violence expressed by parent and adolescent participants reflect real-world behaviors or intentions. Wintemute et al. (2025a) found that although \u0026ldquo;MAGA\u0026rdquo; Republicans were more likely to endorse political violence, they were not more willing to personally engage in violence compared to other political groups. While there is a critical distinction between support and behavioral intentions, attitudes towards hypothetical political violence may still have important implications for other forms of political behavior and normalization of violence within the U.S. political sphere.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eFuture research directions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFuture studies using longitudinal designs will be necessary to corroborate the validity of the current findings as sequential developmental processes (as opposed to correlational effects). In order to identify potential risk or protective factors for political radicalization among White American adolescents, greater attention must be paid to individual and dyadic factors affecting parent-adolescent dynamics. Additionally, it may be important to consider the possibility of bidirectional or transactional effects between parents and adolescents in influencing processes related to psychological adjustment and radicalization. Researchers may also investigate the developmental precedents of radical intentions versus radical behavior, where these processes may differ or converge, and whether there are specific family-level socialization factors that drive adolescent extremists to translate their beliefs into violent action. Future studies could alternatively explore potential links between adolescent extremism and nonviolent political action, including future voting behavior, civic engagement, and involvement with political organizations. The benefits of discerning the socialization contexts and relational processes that give rise to radical beliefs relies on our ability to accurately assess how these beliefs influence adolescents\u0026rsquo; real-world behaviors.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec24\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003ePrevention implications and conclusions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlthough our results cannot determine causality, the indirect relations shown in the present model suggest that parental anxiety, parental radicalization, and parenting behavior may be important targets for future interventions aiming to reduce support for violent extremism among White American adolescents. Specifically, parent factors related to adolescent loneliness, isolation, or social exclusion may be associated with greater risk for political radicalization. Prevention strategies focused on providing parents with adaptive coping methods for dealing with anxiety may have broad spectrum benefits to the family environment, parent-adolescent relationship quality, and adolescent adjustment that may also serve as protective factors against radicalization.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn sum, the findings of this study highlight the critical role of family relational and psychological processes in shaping adolescents\u0026rsquo; support for political violence. By demonstrating both direct and indirect contributions of parental anxiety to adolescent radicalization, this work underscores how parental mental health and family dynamics can serve as key mechanisms in the intergenerational transmission of extremist beliefs. These results suggest that interventions addressing parental anxiety and its downstream effects on parenting behavior and adolescent social well-being may offer promising avenues for reducing vulnerability to radicalization among White American youth. Ultimately, understanding how emotional processes within families interact with broader sociopolitical influences represents a vital step toward developing more holistic, prevention-oriented approaches to countering violent extremism.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eMW wrote the manuscript, prepared figures, conducted analysis, oversaw data collection, co-authored funding efforts, and collaborated in study design.DL, SB, DA, MG, ZM, RF, and DP reviewed the manuscript, co-authored funding efforts, and collaborated in study design.RB reviewed the manuscript in detail, assisted in copy-editing, and assisted in literature review.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eData used in this manuscript is not currently publicly available as it is part of an ongoing longitudinal study. Additionally, the variables used in this analysis include topics of a sensitive nature. Data will be made available in a secure public repository once data collection is complete.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAfifi, M. (2007). Gender differences in mental health. \u003cem\u003eSingapore Medical Journal\u003c/em\u003e, 48(5), 385. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17453094/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026Aacute;lvarez-Garc\u0026iacute;a, D., Garc\u0026iacute;a, T., Barreiro-Collazo, A., Dobarro, A., \u0026amp; Ant\u0026uacute;nez, \u0026Aacute;. (2016). Parenting style dimensions as predictors of adolescent antisocial behavior. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e7\u003c/em\u003e, 1383. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01383\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAmit, S., \u0026amp; Kafy, A. A. (2022). A systematic literature review on preventing violent extremism. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Adolescence\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e94\u003c/em\u003e(8), 1068-1080. https://doi.org/10.1002/jad.12095\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eApsley, H. B., \u0026amp; Padilla-Walker, L. M. (2020). Longitudinal links between parents\u0026rsquo; mental health, parenting, and adolescents\u0026rsquo; mental health: Moderation by adolescent sex. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Family Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, 34(7), 886-892. http://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000788\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eArmaly, M.T., Buckley, D.T. \u0026amp; Enders, A.M. (2022). Christian Nationalism and Political Violence: Victimhood, Racial Identity, Conspiracy, and Support for the Capitol Attacks. \u003cem\u003ePolitical Behavior,\u003c/em\u003e 44, 937\u0026ndash;960. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-021-09758-y\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eArmaly, M. T., \u0026amp; Enders, A. M. (2024). Who Supports Political Violence? \u003cem\u003ePerspectives on Politics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e22\u003c/em\u003e(2), 427\u0026ndash;444. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592722001086\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBaez, S., Tangarife, M. A., Davila-Mejia, G., Trujillo-G\u0026uuml;iza, M., \u0026amp; Forero, D. A. (2023). Performance in emotion recognition and theory of mind tasks in social anxiety and generalized anxiety disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Psychiatry\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e, 1192683. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1192683\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBalz, D., Clement, S., \u0026amp; Guskin, E. (2022). Republicans and Democrats divided over Jan. 6 insurrection and Trump\u0026rsquo;s culpability, Post-UMD poll finds. \u003cem\u003eThe Washington Post\u003c/em\u003e. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/01/post-poll-january-6/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBarber, B. K. (1996). Parental psychological control: Revisiting a neglected construct.\u003cem\u003e Child development\u003c/em\u003e, 67(6), 3296-3319. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1996.tb01915.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBarber, B. K., \u0026amp; Harmon, E. L. (2002). Violating the self: Parental psychological control of children and adolescents. In B. K. Barber (Ed.), \u003cem\u003eIntrusive parenting: How psychological control affects children and adolescents\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 15\u0026ndash;52). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10422-002\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBardall, G., Bjarneg\u0026aring;rd, E., \u0026amp; Piscopo, J. M. (2020). How is political violence gendered? Disentangling motives, forms, and impacts. \u003cem\u003ePolitical Studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e68\u003c/em\u003e(4), 916-935. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321719881812\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBliesener, T., Schr\u0026ouml;der, C. P., \u0026amp; Lehmann, L. (2021). Pathways to radicalization in adolescence: The development of ideological beliefs, acceptance of violence, and extremist behavior. \u003cem\u003eMonatsschrift f\u0026uuml;r Kriminologie und Strafrechtsreform\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e104\u003c/em\u003e(3), 231-242. https://doi.org/10.1515/mks-2021-0124\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBean, R. A., Bush, K. R., McKenry, P. C., \u0026amp; Wilson, S. M. (2003). The impact of parental support, behavioral control, and psychological control on the academic achievement and self-esteem of African American and European American adolescents. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Adolescent Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e18\u003c/em\u003e(5), 523-541. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558403255070\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBeattie, M., Kiuru, N., \u0026amp; Salmela-Aro, K. (2024). Belongingness to groups, adolescent loneliness trajectories, and their consequences. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Behavioral Development\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e49\u003c/em\u003e(3), 240-251. https://doi.org/10.1177/01650254241294019 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBelsky, J. (1984). The Determinants of Parenting: A Process Model. \u003cem\u003eChild Development\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e55\u003c/em\u003e(1), 83\u0026ndash;96. https://doi.org/10.2307/1129836\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBenito‐Gomez, M., Williams, K. N., McCurdy, A., \u0026amp; Fletcher, A. C. (2020). Autonomy‐supportive parenting in adolescence: Cultural variability in the contemporary United States. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Family Theory \u0026amp; Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e(1), 7-26. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12362\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBeyers, W., Soenens, B., \u0026amp; Vansteenkiste, M. (2025). Autonomy in adolescence: a conceptual, developmental and cross-cultural perspective. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Journal of Developmental Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e22\u003c/em\u003e(2), 121-141. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2024.2330734\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBlomqvist, I., Henje Blom, E., H\u0026auml;ggl\u0026ouml;f, B., \u0026amp; Hammarstr\u0026ouml;m, A. (2019). Increase of internalized mental health symptoms among adolescents during the last three decades. \u003cem\u003eEuropean journal of public health\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e29\u003c/em\u003e(5), 925-931. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckz028\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBorum, R. (2014). Psychological vulnerabilities and propensities for involvement in violent extremism. \u003cem\u003eBehavioral sciences \u0026amp; the law\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e32\u003c/em\u003e(3), 286-305. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2110\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBorum, R. (2025). Developmental considerations for assessing the risk of extremist violence in adolescents. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Threat Assessment and Management.\u003c/em\u003e Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/tam0000248\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBronfenbrenner, U. (1994). Ecological models of human development. \u003cem\u003eInternational encyclopedia of education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e3\u003c/em\u003e(2), 37-43.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrown, K., \u0026amp; Mondon, A. (2026). The Media and the Mainstreaming of the Far Right: Reporting, enabling or countering?. In \u003cem\u003eThe Far Right and the Media\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 15-33). Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBuecker, S., Petersen, K., Neuber, A., Zheng, Y., Hayes, D., \u0026amp; Qualter, P. (2024). A systematic review of longitudinal risk and protective factors for loneliness in youth. \u003cem\u003eAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e1542\u003c/em\u003e(1), 620-637. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.15266\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBurstein, M., Ginsburg, G.S. \u0026amp; Tein, JY. Parental Anxiety and Child Symptomatology: An Examination of Additive and Interactive Effects of Parent Psychopathology. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Abnormal Child Psychology\u003c/em\u003e 38, 897\u0026ndash;909 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-010-9415-0\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCalatrava, M., Martins, M. V., Schweer-Collins, M., Duch-Ceballos, C., \u0026amp; Rodr\u0026iacute;guez-Gonz\u0026aacute;lez, M. (2022). Differentiation of self: A scoping review of Bowen Family Systems Theory\u0026rsquo;s core construct. \u003cem\u003eClinical psychology review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e91\u003c/em\u003e, 102101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2021.102101\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCicognani, E., Zani, B., Fournier, B., Gavray, C., \u0026amp; Born, M. (2012). Gender differences in youths\u0026rsquo; political engagement and participation. The role of parents and of adolescents\u0026rsquo; social and civic participation. \u003cem\u003eJournal of adolescence\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e35\u003c/em\u003e(3), 561-576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.10.002\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eClore, G. L., Schwarz, N., \u0026amp; Conway, M. (2014). Affective causes and consequences of social information processing. In \u003cem\u003eHandbook of social cognition\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 323-418). Psychology Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCosta, S., Gugliandolo, M. C., Barberis, N., Cuzzocrea, F., \u0026amp; Liga, F. (2019). Antecedents and consequences of parental psychological control and autonomy support: The role of psychological basic needs. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Social and Personal Relationships\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e36\u003c/em\u003e(4), 1168-1189. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407518756778\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCrosby Budinger, M., Drazdowski, T.K. \u0026amp; Ginsburg, G.S. Anxiety-Promoting Parenting Behaviors: A Comparison of Anxious Parents with and without Social Anxiety Disorder. \u003cem\u003eChild Psychiatry and Human Development\u003c/em\u003e, 44, 412\u0026ndash;418 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-012-0335-9\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDi Cicco, G., Molinario, E., Contu, F., Pierro, A., Douglas, K. M., \u0026amp; Kruglanski, A. W. (2025). From conspiracies to insurgence: understanding the path from conspiracy beliefs to political engagement through the 3N model of radicalization. \u003cem\u003eCurrent Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, 1-19. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s12144-025-07710-5\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDunn, D., Wray‐Lake, L., \u0026amp; Plummer, J. A. (2022). Youth are watching: Adolescents\u0026rsquo; sociopolitical development in the Trump era. \u003cem\u003eChild Development\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e93\u003c/em\u003e(4), 1044-1060. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13762\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDuriez, B., \u0026amp; Soenens, B. (2009). The intergenerational transmission of racism: The role of right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Research in Personality\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e43\u003c/em\u003e(5), 906-909. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.05.014\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEmerson, L. M., Ogielda, C., \u0026amp; Rowse, G. (2019). A systematic review of the role of parents in the development of anxious cognitions in children. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Anxiety Disorders\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e62\u003c/em\u003e, 15-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2018.11.002\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEmmelkamp, J., Asscher, J. J., Wissink, I. B., \u0026amp; Stams, G. J. J. (2020). Risk factors for (violent) radicalization in juveniles: A multilevel meta-analysis. \u003cem\u003eAggression and Violent Behavior\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e55\u003c/em\u003e, 101489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2020.101489\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEpkins, C. C., \u0026amp; Harper, S. L. (2016). Mothers\u0026rsquo; and fathers\u0026rsquo; parental warmth, hostility/rejection/neglect, and behavioral control: Specific and unique relations with parents\u0026rsquo; depression versus anxiety symptoms. \u003cem\u003eParenting\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e16\u003c/em\u003e(2), 125-145. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295192.2016.1134991\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFasching, N., Iyengar, S., Lelkes, Y., \u0026amp; Westwood, S. J. (2024). Persistent polarization: The unexpected durability of political animosity around US elections. \u003cem\u003eScience Advances\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e10\u003c/em\u003e(36). https://doi.org/ 10.1126/sciadv.adm9198\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFeddes, A. R., Mann, L., \u0026amp; Doosje, B. (2015). Increasing self‐esteem and empathy to prevent violent radicalization: a longitudinal quantitative evaluation of a resilience training focused on adolescents with a dual identity. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Applied Social Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e45\u003c/em\u003e(7), 400-411. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12307\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFeinberg, M., Wehling, E., Chung, J. M., Saslow, L. R., \u0026amp; Melv\u0026aelig;r Paulin, I. (2020). Measuring moral politics: How strict and nurturant family values explain individual differences in conservatism, liberalism, and the political middle. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personality and Social Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e118\u003c/em\u003e(4), 777. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000255\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFrick, P. J., \u0026amp; Viding, E. (2009). Antisocial behavior from a developmental psychopathology perspective. \u003cem\u003eDevelopment and Psychopathology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e21\u003c/em\u003e(4), 1111\u0026ndash;1131. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579409990071\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGavazzi, S. M., \u0026amp; Lim, J. Y. (2023). Family systems theory. In \u003cem\u003eFamilies with adolescents: Bridging the gaps between theory, research, and practice\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 35-45). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43407-5_4\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGondoli, D. M., \u0026amp; Silverberg, S. B. (1997). Maternal emotional distress and diminished responsiveness: the mediating role of parenting efficacy and parental perspective taking. \u003cem\u003eDevelopmental Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e33\u003c/em\u003e(5), 861\u0026ndash;868. https://doi.org/10.1037//0012-1649.33.5.861\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGrusec, J. E. (2011). Socialization processes in the family: Social and emotional development. \u003cem\u003eAnnual Review of Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e62\u003c/em\u003e(1), 243-269. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.121208.131650\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHair, E. C., Park, M. J., Ling, T. J., \u0026amp; Moore, K. A. (2009). Risky behaviors in late adolescence: co-occurrence, predictors, and consequences. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Adolescent Health\u003c/em\u003e, 45(3), 253-261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.02.009\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHall-Lande, J. A., Eisenberg, M. E., Christenson, S. L., \u0026amp; Neumark-Sztainer, D. (2007). Social Isolation, Psychological Health, and Protective Factors in Adolescence. \u003cem\u003eAdolescence\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e42\u003c/em\u003e(166), 265\u0026ndash;286. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17849936/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHaner, M., Sloan, M. M., \u0026amp; Pickett, J. T. (2025). White Nationalism and Support for Political Violence in the United States. \u003cem\u003eJustice Quarterly\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;26. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2025.2504966\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHarpviken, A.N. Psychological Vulnerabilities and Extremism Among Western Youth: A Literature Review. \u003cem\u003eAdolescent Research Review\u003c/em\u003e 5, 1\u0026ndash;26 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40894-019-00108-y\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling [White paper]. Retrieved from http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHazelbaker, T., Brown, C. S., Nenadal, L., \u0026amp; Mistry, R. S. (2022). Fostering anti-racism in white children and youth: Development within contexts. \u003cem\u003eAmerican Psychologist\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e77\u003c/em\u003e(4), 497. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000948\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHughes, M. E., Waite, L. J., Hawkley, L. C., \u0026amp; Cacioppo, J. T. (2004). A Short Scale for Measuring Loneliness in Large Surveys: Results From Two Population-Based Studies. \u003cem\u003eResearch on aging\u003c/em\u003e, 26(6), 655\u0026ndash;672. https://doi.org/10.1177/0164027504268574\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIsom Scott, D. A., \u0026amp; Stevens Andersen, T. (2020). \u0026lsquo;Whitelash?\u0026rsquo; status threat, anger, and white America: a general strain theory approach. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Crime and Justice\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e43\u003c/em\u003e(4), 414\u0026ndash;432. https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2019.1704835\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIyer, A. (2022). Understanding advantaged groups\u0026apos; opposition to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies: The role of perceived threat. \u003cem\u003eSocial and Personality Psychology Compass\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e16\u003c/em\u003e(5), e12666. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12666\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJensen, M. A., Atwell Seate, A., \u0026amp; James, P. A. (2020). Radicalization to violence: A pathway approach to studying extremism. \u003cem\u003eTerrorism and Political Violence\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e32\u003c/em\u003e(5), 1067-1090. https://doi.org/10.1080/09546553.2018.1442330\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJost, J. T., Glaser, J., Sulloway, F. J., \u0026amp; Kruglanski, A. W. (2018). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. \u003cem\u003eThe motivated mind\u003c/em\u003e, 129-204.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJugl, I., L\u0026ouml;sel, F., Bender, D., \u0026amp; King, S. (2020). Psychosocial prevention programs against radicalization and extremism: A meta-analysis of outcome evaluations. \u003cem\u003eEuropean journal of psychology applied to legal context\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(1), 37-46. https://doi.org/10.5093/ejpalc2021a6\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKeene, J. R., Shoenberger, H., Berke, C. K., \u0026amp; Bolls, P. D. (2017). The biological roots of political extremism: Negativity bias, political ideology, and preferences for political news.\u003cem\u003e Politics and the Life Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, 36(2), 37\u0026ndash;48. doi:10.1017/pls.2017.16\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKerry, N., \u0026amp; Murray, D. R. (2018). Conservative parenting: Investigating the relationships between parenthood, moral judgment, and social conservatism. \u003cem\u003ePersonality and Individual Differences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e134\u003c/em\u003e, 88-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.05.045\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKim, Y., \u0026amp; Stattin, H. (2019). Parent-youth discussions about politics from age 13 to 28. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Applied Developmental Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e62\u003c/em\u003e, 249-259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2019.04.001\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKoopmans, Y., Nelemans, S. A., Bosmans, G., Van Den Noortgate, W., Van Leeuwen, K., \u0026amp; Goossens, L. (2023). Perceived parental support and psychological control, DNA methylation, and loneliness: longitudinal associations across early adolescence.\u003cem\u003e Journal of youth and adolescence\u003c/em\u003e, 52(10), 1995-2011. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-023-01822-6\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKruglanski, A. W., Szumowska, E., Kopetz, C. H., Vallerand, R. J., \u0026amp; Pierro, A. (2021). On the psychology of extremism: How motivational imbalance breeds intemperance. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Review, 128\u003c/em\u003e(2), 264\u0026ndash;289. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000260\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKuhn, H. P. (2004). Adolescent voting for right-wing extremist parties and readiness to use violence in political action: Parent and peer contexts. \u003cem\u003eJournal of adolescence\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e27\u003c/em\u003e(5), 561-581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2004.06.009\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLavi, I., \u0026amp; Slone, M. (2012). Parental practices and political violence: The protective role of parental warmth and authority-control in Jewish and Arab Israeli children. \u003cem\u003eAmerican Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 82\u003c/em\u003e(4), 550\u0026ndash;561. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-0025.2012.01183.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLiu, J., Li, D., Purwono, U., Chen, X., \u0026amp; French, D. C. (2015). Loneliness of Indonesian and Chinese adolescents as predicted by relationships with friends and parents.\u003cem\u003e Merrill-Palmer Quarterly\u003c/em\u003e, 61(3), 362\u0026ndash;382. https://doi.org/10.13110/merrpalmquar1982.61.3.0362\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eL\u0026ouml;sel, F., Bliesener, T., \u0026amp; Bender, D. (2007). Social Information Processing, Experiences of Aggression in Social Contexts, and Aggressive Behavior in Adolescents. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(3), 330-347. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854806295833\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eL\u0026ouml;sel, F., King, S., Bender, D., \u0026amp; Jugl, I. (2018). Protective factors against extremism and violent radicalization: A systematic review of research. \u003cem\u003eInternational journal of developmental science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e(1-2), 89-102. https://doi.org/10.3233/DEV-170241\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLovibond, P. F., \u0026amp; Lovibond, S. H. (1995). The structure of negative emotional states: Comparison of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS) with the Beck Depression and Anxiety Inventories. \u003cem\u003eBehaviour research and therapy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e33\u003c/em\u003e(3), 335-343. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(94)00075-U\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLyyra, N., Thorsteinsson, E. B., Eriksson, C., Madsen, K. R., Tolvanen, A., L\u0026ouml;fstedt, P., \u0026amp; V\u0026auml;limaa, R. (2021). The association between loneliness, mental well-being, and self-esteem among adolescents in four Nordic countries. \u003cem\u003eInternational journal of environmental research and public health\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e18\u003c/em\u003e(14), 7405. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18147405\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMaes, M., Qualter, P., Vanhalst, J., Van den Noortgate, W., \u0026amp; Goossens, L. (2019). Gender differences in loneliness across the lifespan: A meta\u0026ndash;analysis. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Journal of Personality\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e33\u003c/em\u003e(6), 642-654. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2220\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMaes, M., \u0026amp; Vanhalst, J. (2025). Loneliness as a double-edged sword: an adaptive function with maladaptive consequences. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Journal of Developmental Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e22\u003c/em\u003e(2), 188\u0026ndash;200. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2024.2333584\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMarsden, S., \u0026amp; Lee, B. (2022). Protective Factors for Violent Extremism and Terrorism: Rapid Evidence Assessment. \u003cem\u003eLancaster, UK: Centre for Research and Evidence on Security Threats (CREST)\u003c/em\u003e. https://crestresearch.ac.uk/projects/constraining-violence/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMatthews, T., Odgers, C. L., Danese, A., Fisher, H. L., Newbury, J. B., Caspi, A., ... \u0026amp; Arseneault, L. (2019). Loneliness and neighborhood characteristics: A multi-informant, nationally representative study of young adults. \u003cem\u003ePsychological science\u003c/em\u003e, 30(5), 765-775. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797619836102\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMcCurdy, B.H., Scott, B.G. \u0026amp; Weems, C.F. The Associations Among Parent Anxiety, Emotion Regulation, and Parenting Behaviors. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Child and Family Studies\u003c/em\u003e 31, 2618\u0026ndash;2630 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-022-02389-9\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMcDevitt, M., \u0026amp; Chaffee, S. (2002). From Top-Down to Trickle-Up Influence: Revisiting Assumptions About the Family in Political Socialization. \u003cem\u003ePolitical Communication\u003c/em\u003e, 19(3), 281\u0026ndash;301. https://doi.org/10.1080/01957470290055501\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMcDonald, R. P., \u0026amp; Ho, M.-H. R. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Methods, 7\u003c/em\u003e(1), 64\u0026ndash;82. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.64\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMeđedović, J. M., \u0026amp; Petrović, B. (2021). Intergroup conflict runs in the family: Parental social attitudes and political ideology predict the ethos of conflict in their offspring. \u003cem\u003ePsihologija\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e54\u003c/em\u003e(4), 347-362. https://doi.org/10.2298/PSI200402028M\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMendo-L\u0026aacute;zaro, S., Le\u0026oacute;n-del-Barco, B., Polo-del-R\u0026iacute;o, M. I., Yuste-Tosina, R., \u0026amp; L\u0026oacute;pez-Ramos, V. M. (2019). The role of parental acceptance\u0026ndash;rejection in emotional instability during adolescence. \u003cem\u003eInternational journal of environmental research and public health\u003c/em\u003e, 16(7), 1194. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16071194\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMondon, A., \u0026amp; Winter, A. (2020a). Whiteness, populism and the racialisation of the working class in the United Kingdom and the United States. In \u003cem\u003eWhiteness and nationalism\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 10-28). Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMondon, A., \u0026amp; Winter, A. (2020b). \u003cem\u003eReactionary democracy: How racism and the populist far right became mainstream\u003c/em\u003e. Verso Books.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMoskalenko, S., \u0026amp; McCauley, C. (2009). Measuring political mobilization: The distinction between activism and radicalism. \u003cem\u003eTerrorism and political violence\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e21\u003c/em\u003e(2), 239-260. https://doi.org/10.1080/09546550902765508\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMounts, N. S., Valentiner, D. P., Anderson, K. L., \u0026amp; Boswell, M. K. (2006). Shyness, sociability, and parental support for the college transition: Relation to adolescents\u0026rsquo; adjustment. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Youth and Adolescence\u003c/em\u003e, 35(1), 68\u0026ndash;77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-005-9002-9\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMun, I. B. (2022). A longitudinal study on the effects of parental anxiety on mobile game addiction in adolescents: the mediating role of adolescent anxiety and loneliness. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Mental Health and Addiction\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e22\u003c/em\u003e(1), 560-577. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-022-00890-2\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNair, T. K., Waslin, S. M., Rodrigues, G. A., Datta, S., Moore, M. T., \u0026amp; Brumariu, L. E. (2024). A meta-analytic review of the relations between anxiety and empathy. \u003cem\u003eJournal of anxiety disorders\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e101\u003c/em\u003e, 102795. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2023.102795\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNeundorf, A., Smets, K. \u0026amp; Garc\u0026iacute;a-Albacete, G. Homemade citizens: The development of political interest during adolescence and young adulthood. \u003cem\u003eActa Politica\u003c/em\u003e 48, 92\u0026ndash;116 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1057/ap.2012.23\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eObaidi, M., Kunst, J., Ozer, S., \u0026amp; Kimel, S. Y. (2022). The \u0026ldquo;Great Replacement\u0026rdquo; conspiracy: How the perceived ousting of Whites can evoke violent extremism and Islamophobia. \u003cem\u003eGroup Processes \u0026amp; Intergroup Relations\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e25\u003c/em\u003e(7), 1675-1695. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302211028293\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOpozda-Suder, S., Łopatkiewicz, A., \u0026amp; Michel, M. (2025). The relationship between self-esteem and aggressive behavior: Exploring the mediating role of loneliness and support for violent radicalization. \u003cem\u003ePsychology of Violence\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000612\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePauwels, L. J., \u0026amp; Heylen, B. (2020). Perceived group threat, perceived injustice, and self-reported right-wing violence: An integrative approach to the explanation right-wing violence. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Interpersonal Violence\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e35\u003c/em\u003e(21-22), 4276-4302. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517713711\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eQian, G., Wu, Y., Wang, W., Li, L., Hu, X., Li, R., Liu, C., Huang, A., Han, R., An, Y., \u0026amp; Dou, G. (2022). Parental psychological control and adolescent social problems: The mediating effect of emotion regulation. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in psychiatry\u003c/em\u003e, 13, 995211. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.995211\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRekker, R., Keijsers, L., Branje, S., \u0026amp; Meeus, W. (2017). The dynamics of political identity and issue attitudes in adolescence and early adulthood. \u003cem\u003eElectoral Studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e46\u003c/em\u003e, 101-111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2017.02.005\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eReyna, C., Bellovary, A., \u0026amp; Harris, K. (2022). The psychology of White nationalism: Ambivalence towards a changing America. \u003cem\u003eSocial Issues and Policy Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e16\u003c/em\u003e(1), 79-124. https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12081\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRohner, R. P., \u0026amp; Smith, R. L. (2019). Parental acceptance-rejection. In \u003cem\u003eHandbook of parenting\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 401-420). Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRowe, S.L., Gembeck, M.J.Z., Rudolph, J. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e A Longitudinal Study of Rejecting and Autonomy-Restrictive Parenting, Rejection Sensitivity, and Socioemotional Symptoms in Early Adolescents. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Abnormal Child Psychology\u003c/em\u003e 43, 1107\u0026ndash;1118 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-014-9966-6\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRussell, D. W. (1996). UCLA Loneliness Scale (Version 3): Reliability, Validity, and Factor Structure. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personality Assessment\u003c/em\u003e, 66(1), 20\u0026ndash;40. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6601_2\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSalmela, M., \u0026amp; Von Scheve, C. (2017). Emotional roots of right-wing political populism. \u003cem\u003eSocial Science Information\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e56\u003c/em\u003e(4), 567-595. https://doi.org/10.1177/0539018417734419\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchils, N., \u0026amp; Verhage, A. (2017). Understanding How and Why Young People Enter Radical or Violent Extremist Groups. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Conflict \u0026amp; Violence\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;17. https://doi.org/10.4119/UNIBI/ijcv.473\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchrock, M., \u0026amp; Woodruff-Borden, J. (2010). Parent-Child Interactions in Anxious Families. \u003cem\u003eChild \u0026amp; Family Behavior Therapy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e32\u003c/em\u003e(4), 291\u0026ndash;310. https://doi.org/10.1080/07317107.2010.515523\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchroeder, J., \u0026amp; Epley, N. (2020). Demeaning: Dehumanizing others by minimizing the importance of their psychological needs. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personality and Social Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e119\u003c/em\u003e(4), 765. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/pspa0000199\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchumacker, R. E., \u0026amp; Lomax, R. G. (2010). \u003cem\u003eA beginner\u0026apos;s guide to structural equation modeling\u003c/em\u003e (3rd ed.). Routledge/Taylor \u0026amp; Francis Group.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSeemann, A. (2022). The Psychological Structure of Loneliness.\u003cem\u003e International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health\u003c/em\u003e, 19(3), 1061. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19031061\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSege, C. T., Bradley, M. M., \u0026amp; Lang, P. J. (2018). Avoidance and escape: Defensive reactivity and trait anxiety. \u003cem\u003eBehaviour Research and Therapy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e104\u003c/em\u003e, 62-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2018.03.002\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSegrin, C., Woszidlo, A., Givertz, M., \u0026amp; Montgomery, N. (2013). Parent and child traits associated with overparenting. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Social and Clinical Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e32\u003c/em\u003e(6), 569-595. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2013.32.6.569\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSingam, K. V. (2025). Assessing the Extreme Right in the West in 2024. \u003cem\u003eCounter Terrorist Trends and Analyses\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e(1), 118\u0026ndash;125. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48807514\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSkogan, W. G. (1995). Crime and the racial fears of white Americans. \u003cem\u003eThe Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e539\u003c/em\u003e(1), 59-71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716295539001005\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSoenens, B., \u0026amp; Vansteenkiste, M. (2010). A theoretical upgrade of the concept of parental psychological control: Proposing new insights on the basis of self-determination theory. \u003cem\u003eDevelopmental Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e30\u003c/em\u003e(1), 74-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2009.11.001\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSofrona, E., \u0026amp; Giannakopoulos, G. (2024). The impact of parental depressive, anxiety, and stress symptoms on adolescents\u0026rsquo; mental health and quality of life: The moderating role of parental rejection. \u003cem\u003eChildren\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e(11), 1361. https://doi.org/10.3390/children11111361\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpithoven, A. W., Bijttebier, P., \u0026amp; Goossens, L. (2017). It is all in their mind: A review on information processing bias in lonely individuals. \u003cem\u003eClinical psychology review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e58\u003c/em\u003e, 97-114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2017.10.003\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSporer, K., \u0026amp; Buxton, B. (2024). The role of family members in the prevention of violent extremism and terrorism: A scoping review of the literature. \u003cem\u003eAggression and Violent Behavior\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e78\u003c/em\u003e, 101990. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2024.101990\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStruben, J., Sterman, J., \u0026amp; Keith, D. (2015). Parameter estimation through maximum likelihood and bootstrapping methods. \u003cem\u003eAnalytical methods for dynamic modelers\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e1\u003c/em\u003e, 3-38. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9927.001.0001\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTedin, K. L. (1974). The influence of parents on the political attitudes of adolescents. \u003cem\u003eAmerican Political Science Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e68\u003c/em\u003e(4), 1579-1592. https://doi.org/10.2307/1959943\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThompson, J. D., \u0026amp; Sengul, K. (2025). The platforming is the point: News media,\u0026lsquo;the oxygen of amplification\u0026rsquo;, and interviewing the far-right. \u003cem\u003eCommunication and the Public\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1177/205704732513348\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTirkkonen, S. K., \u0026amp; Tietjen, R. R. (2025). Loneliness and radicalization. \u003cem\u003ePhilosophy \u0026amp; Social Criticism\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1177/01914537251334550\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTrip, S., Bora, C. H., Marian, M., Halmajan, A., \u0026amp; Drugas, M. I. (2019). Psychological mechanisms involved in radicalization and extremism. A rational emotive behavioral conceptualization. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, 10, 437. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00437\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTurner, S. M., Beidel, D. C., Roberson-Nay, R., \u0026amp; Tervo, K. (2003). Parenting behaviors in parents with anxiety disorders. \u003cem\u003eBehaviour research and therapy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e41\u003c/em\u003e(5), 541-554. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(02)00028-1\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTyler, M., \u0026amp; Iyengar, S. (2023). Learning to dislike your opponents: Political socialization in the era of polarization. \u003cem\u003eAmerican Political Science Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e117\u003c/em\u003e(1), 347-354. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000305542200048X\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eU.S. Department of Justice Office of Public Affairs. (2025, June 16). \u003cem\u003eAfter Two-Day Manhunt, Suspect Charged with Shooting Two Minnesota Lawmakers and Their Spouses \u003c/em\u003e[Press release]. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/after-two-day-manhunt-suspect-charged-shooting-two-minnesota-lawmakers-and-their-spouses\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVan Der Bruggen, C. O., Stams, G. J. J., \u0026amp; B\u0026ouml;gels, S. M. (2008). Research review: The relation between child and parental anxiety and parental control: A meta‐analytic review. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e49\u003c/em\u003e(12), 1257-1269. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2008.01898.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVan Ditmars, M. M. (2023). Political socialization, political gender gaps and the intergenerational transmission of left-right ideology.\u003cem\u003e European Journal of Political Research\u003c/em\u003e, 62(1), 3\u0026ndash;24. doi:10.1111/1475-6765.12517\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWeinschenk, A., \u0026amp; Smith, K. (2024). Is political anxiety different than general anxiety?\u003cem\u003e Politics and the Life Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, 43(2), 226\u0026ndash;234. https://doi.org/10.1017/pls.2024.6\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWerner, N. E. (2012). Do Hostile Attribution Biases in Children and Parents Predict Relationally Aggressive Behavior? \u003cem\u003eThe Journal of Genetic Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, 173(3), 221\u0026ndash;245. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221325.2011.600357\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWeston, R., \u0026amp; Gore Jr, P. A. (2006). A brief guide to structural equation modeling. \u003cem\u003eThe Counseling Psychologist\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e34\u003c/em\u003e(5), 719-751. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006286345\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhittaker, T. A., \u0026amp; Schumacker, R. E. (2022). A Beginner\u0026rsquo;s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling (5th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003044017\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWilliams, K.E., Ciarrochi, J. \u0026amp; Heaven, P.C.L. Inflexible Parents, Inflexible Kids: A 6-Year Longitudinal Study of Parenting Style and the Development of Psychological Flexibility in Adolescents (2012). \u003cem\u003eJournal of Youth and Adolescence. \u003c/em\u003e41, 1053\u0026ndash;1066. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-012-9744-0\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWintemute, G. J., Velasquez, B., Robinson, S. L., Tomsich, E. A., Wright, M. A., \u0026amp; Shev, A. B. (2025a). The MAGA movement and political violence in 2024: findings from a nationally representative survey. \u003cem\u003eInjury Epidemiology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e(1), 78. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40621-025-00633-6\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWintemute, G. J., Robinson, S. L., Crawford, A., Schleimer, J. P., Tancredi, D. J., Shev, A. B., ... \u0026amp; Cruz, S. S. (2025b). \u003cem\u003eViews on Democracy and Political Violence in the United States in 2025: Findings from a Nationally Representative Survey\u003c/em\u003e. PsyArXiv. https://osf.io/download/bzah4/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWolfe, S. E., McLean, K., \u0026amp; Pratt, T. C. (2017). I learned it by watching you: Legal socialization and the intergenerational transmission of legitimacy attitudes. \u003cem\u003eBritish Journal of Criminology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e57\u003c/em\u003e(5), 1123-1143. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azw038\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWolfowicz, M., Litmanovitz, Y., Weisburd, D., \u0026amp; Hasisi, B. (2021). Cognitive and behavioral radicalization: A systematic review of the putative risk and protective factors. \u003cem\u003eCampbell Systematic Reviews\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e(3), e1174. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1174\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eXu, G., Bullock, A., Yang, P., \u0026amp; Liu, J. (2020). Psychological Control and Internalizing Problems: The Mediating Role of Mother-Child Relationship Quality. \u003cem\u003eParenting\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e21\u003c/em\u003e(2), 108\u0026ndash;117. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295192.2020.1831295\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYoo, H., Feng, X. \u0026amp; Day, R.D. Adolescents\u0026rsquo; Empathy and Prosocial Behavior in the Family Context: A Longitudinal Study. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Youth and Adolescence\u003c/em\u003e 42, 1858\u0026ndash;1872 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-012-9900-6\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZych, I., \u0026amp; Nasaescu, E. (2022). Is radicalization a family issue? A systematic review of family‐related risk and protective factors, consequences, and interventions against radicalization. \u003cem\u003eCampbell Systematic Reviews\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e18\u003c/em\u003e(3), e1266. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1266\u003cbr clear=\"all\"\u003e \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"political violence, adolescence, parenting, loneliness, psychological control, anxiety","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9382820/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9382820/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBackground\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eViolent, far-right ideologies centered around White American identity have become increasingly normalized in mainstream U.S. conservative politics in recent years. As a result, these ideas may become increasingly relevant to political socialization in conservative White families, placing White adolescents at risk for violent political radicalization. Integrating past findings and theoretical frameworks, the present study explored direct and indirect connections between adolescent support for violent extremism, parental anxiety, and three potential risk factors: parental radicalization, parental psychological control, and adolescent loneliness.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMethod\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e413 politically conservative White parents and their adolescent children (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003eage\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e = 15.28, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e = 1.41, 45.5% female) were recruited as dyads to complete a cross-sectional online survey. Parents and adolescents separately reported their support for the use of political violence. Additionally, parents completed a measure of anxiety and adolescents completed measures of perceived parental psychological control and loneliness.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResults\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAnalysis of the hypothesized structural equation model demonstrated significant direct pathways from parental anxiety to parental radicalization and psychological control. Additionally, we found five indirect pathways from parental anxiety to adolescent radicalization via the risk factors of parental radicalization, psychological control, and adolescent loneliness. \u003cem\u003eImplications\u003c/em\u003e: These findings provide insight into the complex dyadic processes that may be linked to support for extremist violence and call for greater focus on family relational dynamics as risk factors for radicalization among White American youth.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Adolescent support for political violence in conservative White families: the roles of parental anxiety and other risk factors","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-04-26 15:42:33","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9382820/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"749c67e2-8368-4c73-a47d-158450901fc6","owner":[],"postedDate":"April 26th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-04-26T15:42:33+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-04-26 15:42:33","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-9382820","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-9382820","identity":"rs-9382820","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}