Prof. Kristin J. Anderson, Ph.D.

/ Aggrieved Entitlement and the Radicalization of Young Men

A puzzling demographic shift has emerged across many democracies: young men show an increasing propensity to support the radical right. This trend has become so pronounced that the ideological gap between young men and women now often exceeds generational divides, challenging the assumption that generational replacement will necessarily lead to more liberal societies. Our project investigates the role of psychological entitlement in shaping authoritarian and anti-democratic attitudes among young men.

We argue that, in the context of declining social mobility and shifting social norms, many young men experience a profound sense of status loss. This is often compounded by the perception that female emancipation represents an undeserved challenge to traditional masculine roles, resulting in a threatened male identity and a diminished sense of social recognition. We propose a mobilization mechanism through which right-wing actors transform these diffuse frustrations into partisan support by offering specific identity templates. Our analysis focuses on the manosphere as a digital ecosystem that frames male identity in terms of injury and loss, presenting right-wing politics as the primary vehicle for restoring status and recognition. These narratives function as interpretive frameworks that translate loosely articulated grievances into coherent claims of collective deprivation and aggrieved entitlement.

This logic aligns with the concept of collective narcissism, which describes a fragile yet inflated sense of ingroup entitlement that becomes politically consequential when expected recognition is perceived to be withheld. Manosphere narratives strategically convert negative emotions such as fear and insecurity into anger and perceptions of injustice. By offering simplified explanations that assign blame to outgroups and political elites, right-wing actors provide affective frames that can facilitate political mobilization among exposed individuals. We therefore expect that effective counter-framings must engage with these same affective structures if they are to attenuate the attitudinal effects of grievance-oriented narratives.

The empirical part of the project examines how experiences of perceived unfairness shape political attitudes and susceptibility to competing political narratives. To do so, it draws on original data on the political attitudes and behavior of young men and combines observational and experimental elements to investigate both the political effects of grievance and the conditions under which these effects may be reinforced or mitigated by alternative interpretive frames.