Radicalization and violent extremism: Perspectives from research on group processes and intergroup relations (original) (raw)
Related papers
Understanding the role of social groups in radicalisation
2014
The inability to form psychological profiles of individual members across a variety of extremist groups, as well as the recognition in extremism and terrorism research indicates that no adequate personality profile exists. This requires an analysis of other factors that influence the radicalisation process. By drawing on social identity theory, this paper offers a psycho-social explanation for how people define themselves in relation to their social group, as well as how the intra-group relationships can lead to extreme behaviour and resistance to counter efforts. These groups promote a salient social identity that becomes intrinsic to the self to the extent that members would risk their wellbeing, or that of others, to enhance or maintain their group’s cause.
The Role of Social Groups in Radicalisation
The inability to form psychological profiles of individual members across a variety of extremist groups, as well as the recognition in extremism and terrorism research indicates that no adequate personality profile exists. This requires an analysis of other factors that influence the radicalisation process. By drawing on social identity theory, this paper offers a psycho-social explanation for how people define themselves in relation to their social group, as well as how the intra-group relationships can lead to extreme behaviour and resistance to counter efforts. These groups promote a salient social identity that becomes intrinsic to the self to the extent that members would risk their wellbeing, or that of others, to enhance or maintain their group's cause.
Why so Radical: The Psychology of Process of Radicalization
The 7th Annual INTERPA Conference, 2018
The examination of studies on radicalization reveals that international major events have shaped the related research and studies. For instance, prior to September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, terrorism studies had been rather marginal area of study in various disciplines such as sociology, social psychology, and political science but after the 9-11, terrorism researchers and experts became celebrities overnight (Maskaliunaite, 2015). London bombings in July 2005 is another example, after which “radicalization” became a new buzz word as officials and public were wondering how four seemingly ordinary British citizens turned into suicide bombers and targeted civilians. Given that there are many attacks around the World, it is not surprising that after each attack policy makers and security services have been turning to researchers and experts to understand why such events are taking place in order to explore the ways to prevent future incidents from happening. Public also seeking answer to the question of “why do they hate us?”. Terrorist attacks are mainly carried out by radical individuals and that many of these individuals act in terrorist groups, but there are some questions still remain unanswered such as “whether all radicals are terrorists?” and “how to deal with different type of radicalization?”. I argue that psychological perspective on process of radicalization may assist the policy makers and public answer some of the above questions. The objective of this paper is threefold. Firstly, examining the concept of radicalization, in order to provide operational definition of radicalization. Secondly, summarizing process of radicalization based on individual variables and group-level decision making strategies along with the wider political and social context in which radicalization occurs. Thirdly, reviewing the two pyramids model (McCauley & Moskalenko, 2017) in order to provide a practical framework for the examination of political radicalization. Keywords: psychology of radicalization, relative deprivation, terrorism, two pyramids model of political radicalization, terror management theory, social identity theory
Mechanisms of Political Radicalization: Pathways Toward Terrorism
This article conceptualizes political radicalization as a dimension of increasing extrernity ofbeliefs, feelings, and behaviors in support 0.( intergroup conflict and violence Aeros's individuals, groups, and J11aSS publics, twelve mechanisms of radicalir~: zation are distinguished. For ten of these mechanisms, radiculization occurs in a context of group identification and reaction to perceived threat to the ingroup. The variety and strength of reactive mechanisms point to the need to understand rudicalization-s-including the extremes 0.1 terrOriSJ11--0S emerging more [rom the dvnamics of intergroup conflict than from the vicissitudes n.1' individual psychology
Dynamics of Asymmetric Conflict, 2018
Research on radicalization to accept extremist ideologies has expanded dramatically over the last decade, particularly attempts to theorize pathways to violence. These models are complex, and contain aspects of key criminological frameworks including social learning and social control theories. At the same time, they do reconcile the inherent differences in these frameworks, requiring research to examine how these models could be combined and the utility in using an integrated model to account for radicalization as a whole. This analysis uses four case studies developed from two of the most wellknown open-source terrorism databases to assess these frameworks, using two far-right and two jihadist perpetrators, with one engaged in violence and the other non-violent activity in each ideological grouping. The implications of this analysis for our understanding of radicalization and the utility of criminological theories are considered in depth. Scholarly efforts to better understand terrorism have greatly increased since the attacks on
Radicalization into Violent Extremism I: A Review of Social Science Theories
2011
Abstract In discourse about countering terrorism, the term" radicalization" is widely used, but remains poorly defined. To focus narrowly on ideological radicalization risks implying that radical beliefs are a proxy—or at least a necessary precursor—for terrorism, though we know this not to be true. Different pathways and mechanisms of terrorism involvement operate in different ways for different people at different points in time and perhaps in different contexts.
Radicalization: Grievances, Networks, Ideologies, and Support Structures
Why and how do individuals residing in relatively peaceful and affluent western societies come to embrace extremist ideologies that emanate from distant places? We summarize the most recent empirical literature on the causes and dynamics of radicalization, and evaluate the state of the art in the study of Islamist homegrown extremism in the West. We propose a theoretical synthesis based on four factors that come together to produce violent radicalization: personal and collective grievances, networks and interpersonal ties, political and religious ideologies, and enabling environments and support structures. We propose adopting a “puzzle” metaphor that represents a multifactor and contextualized approach to understanding how ordinary individuals transform into violent extremists. We concluded with three recommendations to strengthen the empirical foundations of radicalization studies.
The Necessity to Recognize Processes of Radicalization from a Socio‑cultural Perspective
Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 2021
The current paper investigates Psychoanalytic, Cognitive, Behaviorist, and Sociocultural theories and critiques how they have (or might have) contributed to the study of radicalization. The paper asserts two arguments that lack emphasis in the current radicalization research: 1) radicalization refers to a process, and does not always refer to violent behavior; 2) radicalization research needs to pay tribute to socio-cultural, political, and historical context while designing research and discussing findings. These two points are essential to extend the concept of radicalization and to be sensitive to different research contexts and populations. Currently, the conceptualization of radicalization appears to be generalized to violent action among minority groups (mainly Muslims) in limited contexts (mostly Western countries). The article claims that Psychology can better contribute to this diverse field of interest with its well-established theoretical contributions to the understanding of human beings and its compassion to seek differences amongst people across different contexts.
The Radicalization Puzzle: A Theoretical Synthesis of Empirical Approaches to Homegrown Extremism
Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 2015
Why and how do individuals residing in relatively peaceful and affluent Western societies come to embrace extremist ideologies that emanate from distant places? We summarize the most recent empirical literature on the causes and dynamics of radicalization, and evaluate the state of the art in the study of Islamist homegrown extremism in the West. We propose a theoretical synthesis based on four factors that come together to produce violent radicalization: personal and collective grievances, networks and interpersonal ties, political and religious ideologies, and enabling environments and support structures. We propose adopting a "puzzle" metaphor that represents a multifactor and contextualized approach to understanding how ordinary individuals transform into violent extremists. We concluded with three recommendations to strengthen the empirical foundations of radicalization studies.
Radicalization into Violent Extremism II: A Review of Conceptual Models and Empirical Research
2011
Abstract Over the past decade, analysts have proposed several frameworks to explain the process of radicalization into violent extremism (RVE). These frameworks are based primarily on rational, conceptual models which are neither guided by theory nor derived from systematic research. This article reviews recent (post-9/11) conceptual models of the radicalization process and recent (post-9/11) empirical studies of RVE.