The Psychology of Radicalization and Deradicalization: How Significance Quest Impacts Violent Extremism (original) (raw)
Related papers
Quest for Significance and Violent Extremism: The Case of Domestic Radicalization
Political Psychology, 2016
In the present study, we applied the quest for significance model of radicalization to explain the use of political violence. According to the model, when people experience loss of personal significance (e.g., due to social rejection, achievement failures, or abuse) the motivation to restore significance may push them toward the use of extreme means. We tested this prediction in a sample of individuals who have committed ideologically motivated crimes in the United States (n 5 1496). We found that experiences of economic and social loss of significance were separate and positive predictors related to the use of violence by perpetrators of ideologically motivated crimes. We also found evidence that the presence of radicalized others (friends but not family members) in the individuals' social network increased their likelihood of using violence.
We present a model of radicalization and deradicalization based on the notion that the quest for personal significance constitutes a major motivational force that may push individuals toward violent extremism. Radicalization is defined as the process of supporting or engaging in activities deemed (by others) as in violation of important social norms (e.g., the killing of civilians). In these terms, radicalization (1) is a matter of degree (in which mere attitudinal support for violence reflects a lower degree of radicalization than actual engagement in violence); (2) represents a subjective judgment proffered by those for whom the violated norms seem important but not by those who have devalued or suppressed the norms in question.
The present studies examined the hypothesis that loss of personal significance fuels extremism via the need for cognitive closure. Situations of significance loss-those that make one feel ashamed, humiliated, or demeaned-are inconsistent with the desire for a positive self-image, and instill a sense of uncertainty about the self. Consequently, individuals become motivated to seek certainty and closure that affords the restoration of personal significance. Extremist ideologies should thus increase in appeal, because they promise clear-cut strategies for such restoration. These notions were supported in a series of studies ranging from field surveys of political extremists imprisoned in the Philippines (Study 1) and Sri Lanka (Study 2) to experiments conducted with American samples . Implications of these findings are considered for the psychology of extremism, and for approaches to counterradicalization, and deradicalization.
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
Extremism and Radicalization: What makes the difference?
Bilgi Prime Youth ERC Blog, 2020
There are two terms extremism and radicalism, which are nowadays often being interchangeably used in everyday life as well as in the scientific literature (Moskalenko and McCauley, 2009). This is not a surprise in an age dominated by the populist Zeitgeist (Mudde, 2004) in which a dualist understanding prevails over in conceptualizing and understanding social, economic and political phenomena. Scientific thinking is not also free from this myopic and reductionist inclination. Recent evidence suggests that, beyond the realm of scientific investigations, policy makers, journalists and the general public also use these terms quite flexibly and interchangeably to label various social and psychological phenomena. For instance, research suggests that individuals tend to attribute psychological pathologies to perpetrators of violent actions to deny them any similarity with themselves and protect their distinctiveness (Noor et al., 2019). Such processes may explain the popularity of the term ‘radicalization’ to designate terrorists (i.e. ‘radicalized’ individuals) in the public sphere, thereby emphasizing a hypothesized psychopathological root to their political action (Mandel, 2009).
Radical Beliefs and Violent Behaviour in 'De-radicalisation' Scientific insights for policy
This chapter aims to show how radical beliefs and violent action relate to each other. It summarises the current landscape of academic research that has, in different ways, attempted to identify the causes of terrorist action. In showing the current trends, areas of consensus and areas of dispute, the chapter aims to show the complex relationship between drivers based on ideas, ideologies and beliefs and drivers based on other factors. Terrorists, like normal people, are influenced on a number of different levels and in ways that they do not always realise or acknowledge themselves. Whether through social ties, the power of counter-culture, or the desire to seek thrills, status or recognition, the story of why people undertake political violence is more complex and subtle than simply a question of belief.
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.
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.
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.
Militant Extremist Mindset and the Assessment of Radicalization in the General Population
This paper presents new data and reviews the available evidence pointing to the existence of three main ingredients of militant extremist mindset (MEM). Three different methods of item development identified factors that we have labeled Nastiness, Grudge, and Excuse. In other words, there are in our midst nasty people who are more prepared than others to accept, approve, or even advocate the use of violence. When such people feel a grudge, in that they see somebody as threatening to themselves (or to members of the group they belong to) or think that the world is not a hospitable place in which to live, they may resort to violence. This violence is often accompanied by an excuse or justification that refers to a higher authority or a "noble" principle such as religiosity or utopianism. Although all three ingredients may be open to intervention, Grudge might be the most amenable. Social policies related to immigration and procedures for dealing with protest counterculture may be effective in reducing MEM. The most important, however, is the need to espouse principles of diversity and tolerance.