Economic crises affect not only the business world but also the psychological structure and social relations of society in profound ways. Rising unemployment, income loss, and uncertainty across various sectors increase individuals’ stress levels and often create a ground for violent behavior. From a psychosocial support perspective, understanding how economic difficulties shape tendencies toward violence is critical to protecting society’s mental health during times of crisis. A society without security experiences deprivation not only in material terms but also in psychological and social aspects. This deprivation can sometimes turn into a dynamic that directs individuals toward violence. So, how does this process unfold?
Rising Stress and Frustration
According to Catalano and colleagues (2011), economic downturns increase psychological and behavioral problems. In particular, unemployment contributes to the rise of depression and anxiety, increased use of alcohol and drugs, and a higher prevalence of domestic violence. Research has shown that individuals who lose their jobs may be up to 6 times more likely to engage in violent behavior. This situation can be explained by the classical Frustration–Aggression Hypothesis: when people are blocked from or deprived of rewards they believe they deserve, they may express their frustration through aggression (Catalano et al., 2011).
In addition, during times of crisis, violent incidents do not always rise steadily but fluctuate. In the early stages of economic decline, violence rates increase. However, when unemployment becomes inevitable, some individuals behave more cautiously due to the fear of losing their jobs. Although this is referred to as the “inhibition effect,” it can also be seen as the suppression of society through fear and insecurity. In this sense, fear may suppress violence, showing that the relationship between economic crisis and violence is not linear but fluctuating.
The Desire to Be Significant
Another dimension of the relationship between crisis and violence is related to individuals’ psychosocial needs. Kruglanski and his colleagues (2023) developed the Significance Quest Theory (SQT), which interprets violence not only as a reaction to blocked goals but also as a result of the individual’s desire to feel valuable and important. An individual who loses their job may feel as though they have lost their social status; the resulting income loss may cause them to question their role within the family. This threatens the person’s sense of social value and leads them to feel psychologically “insignificant.” According to Kruglanski’s study, violence may then emerge as an attempt to reclaim lost significance.
This theory suggests that violent tendencies increase under three main conditions:
-
The individual perceives economic loss as a personal humiliation.
-
Alternative ways of gaining significance (such as productivity, social belonging) are not accessible.
-
The individual’s cognitive resources are limited, reducing their ability to assess the situation rationally.
From this perspective, social exclusion, feelings of failure, and anxiety about the future can be expected to push individuals to aggressive behaviors.
Psychosocial Support Mechanisms
Both Catalano et al. (2011) and Kruglanski et al. (2023) approach the crisis–violence relationship from different angles but converge on one point: psychosocial support is critical. Economic measures alone are insufficient; individuals must be provided with alternative ways to gain value, a strengthened sense of belonging, and access to effective social support networks. Programs aimed at preventing domestic violence, psychological counseling for the unemployed, and mechanisms of social solidarity are among the strongest tools for preventing violence.
The violent tendencies generated by economic crises are not only an expression of public anger but also a factor that threatens the legitimacy of authority itself. Suppressed anger, even when seemingly controlled, accumulates and may erupt unexpectedly, exposing the fragility of the existing order. The paradox here is that the only actor capable of resolving this situation is once again the authority itself. Yet, the solution does not lie in fear and repression but in policies that strengthen justice, transparency, and social solidarity.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while economic crises are not the sole factor directly triggering violent behavior, their impact is far from negligible. Unemployment, income loss, and lack of social security create intense stress, anxiety, and despair in individuals. These emotions make it harder to control anger and can lead to aggressive behavior. From a psychosocial perspective, individuals in times of crisis lose not only material resources but also their social status and hopes for the future. This deprivation may increase conflict within families and foster insecurity and polarization in society.
References
Catalano, R., Goldman-Mellor, S., Saxton, K., Margerison-Zilko, C., Subbaraman, M., LeWinn, K., & Anderson, E. (2011). The health effects of economic decline. Annual Review of Public Health, 32(1), 431–450. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031210-101146
Kruglanski, A. W., Jasko, K., Webber, D., Chernikova, M., & Molinario, E. (2023). Frustration–aggression hypothesis reconsidered: The role of significance quest. Aggressive Behavior, 49(1), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.22035