Unpacking Group Dynamics in Far-Right Telegram Communities: Insights into Structural, Cooperative, and Conflictual Interactions

The last decades have witnessed a continuous rise in radicalization within far-right milieus. Social groups, particularly online groups on platforms like Telegram, have been identified as critical catalysts for this phenomenon (Kruglanski et al., 2014). These groups combine ideological reinforcement with socio-emotional validation, fostering and amplifying radical beliefs (Authors, 2022). The radicalization potential of such groups is closely tied to their structural characteristics and the nature of interactions among their members (Smith et al., 2020). While existing literature underscores the influence of groups on radicalization processes, research on the specific dynamics within these groups remains limited. To address this gap, we conducted a longitudinal quantitative content analysis of far-right Telegram groups, presenting findings based on a pretest with N = 100 discussion excerpts. Adopting Forsyth’s (2019) framework, we analyzed three forms of group dynamics: (1) structural dynamics, encompassing group structure, normative orientation, and power distribution; (2) cooperative dynamics, focusing on member interactions; and (3) conflict dynamics, relating to intra-group disagreements and opinion negotiations. Preliminary results reveal that structural dynamics are particularly prominent in far-right Telegram groups. Identity-shaping interactions, characterized by distinguishing the group from external entities (45%), suggest that these groups provide critical spaces for individuals to develop a collective identity, thereby potentially fostering radicalization (Doosje et al., 2016). Furthermore, flat hierarchies dominate (81%), indicating minimal central control and enabling unregulated interactions that may nurture extremist tendencies (Smith et al., 2020). Cooperative dynamics were also evident, with emotional engagement (12%), social support (21%), and rituals (28%) playing significant roles in fostering group cohesion. These findings suggest that ideological alignment not only consolidates shared beliefs but also strengthens emotional ties among members. Furthermore, the rarity of conflicts underscores the group’s strong inclination to preserve internal cohesion. However, this emphasis on homogeneity may further reinforce shared beliefs while limiting exposure to diverse perspectives, potentially increasing the group’s susceptibility to radicalizing influences. These insights highlight the importance of understanding group dynamics in online extremist milieus. Future research should explore the causal relationships between these dynamics and radicalization processes, offering potential avenues for intervention strategies that address the socio-emotional and structural factors underpinning these groups.