A recent survey has sparked significant discussion by challenging long-held assumptions about gender and political violence in the United States. The Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI), affiliated with Rutgers University, released a study titled "Assassination Culture: How Shifting Gender Patterns Signal a New National Instability" in early 2026. This research examined attitudes toward politically motivated violence, specifically justifications for the assassination of public figures.
The survey, based on a weighted sample of over 1,000 American adults, presented scenarios involving hypothetical political murders—of a Left-leaning figure (referred to as Mamdani in reports) and a Right-leaning one (Donald Trump). Respondents rated the justification for such acts on a scale, where higher scores indicated greater acceptance.
Contrary to traditional expectations that men are more prone to endorsing violence, the results showed women were more likely to express some level of justification. Women were approximately 21% more likely than men to justify the murder of the Left-leaning figure and about 15% more likely for the Right-leaning one. Overall, women showed roughly 15% higher support for what the study termed "assassination culture"—a generalised tolerance for political murder — regardless of the target's ideology.
This pattern held even though support was higher on the political Left (67% of left-leaning respondents saw some justification in certain cases, versus 54% on the right), and the increase was notable compared to prior years. The researchers highlighted that this gender shift was unexpected and linked it to factors like heavy social media use, perceptions of national decline (e.g., viewing the U.S. as an "empire in decline"), and online outrage dynamics. High social media exposure amplified tolerance for violence, particularly among women.
This finding contrasts with many other surveys on political violence. For instance:
- Studies from the Skeptic Research Center (2025) and various longitudinal polls often show men overall more supportive of political violence, though subgroups like young liberal women sometimes match or exceed rates among older or moderate men.
- PRRI and other nationally representative surveys frequently find no strong gender reversal, or even note women more concerned about violence's causes (e.g., higher attribution to factors like hate symbols or uncondemned rhetoric).
- Broader research on actual perpetration of violence (versus endorsement) continues to associate higher risks with men in contexts tied to gender inequality or extremism.
The NCRI results do not suggest women are inherently more violent — actual acts of political violence remain disproportionately committed by men — but they point to evolving attitudes in a polarised, digitally fuelled environment. Endorsement of violence in hypotheticals may reflect emotional responses to perceived threats, moral outrage amplified online, or shifting social norms rather than intent to act.
This development raises important questions about the role of digital platforms in normalizing extreme rhetoric and eroding norms against violence. It also underscores how polarisation can transcend traditional gender patterns, with online echo chambers potentially affecting women differently through relational aggression, moral signalling, or exposure to outrage content.
As political tensions persist, understanding these attitudinal shifts is crucial for addressing root causes — whether through media literacy, reducing algorithmic amplification of extremism, or fostering cross-ideological dialogue. Dismissing such findings because they defy stereotypes risks missing emerging risks to democratic stability. While most Americans still reject political violence outright, even small increases in tolerance among any group warrant attention in an era of heightened threats to public figures and institutions.
https://www.city-journal.org/article/women-political-violence-digital-online