Editor’s Introduction: Terrorism and Violent Extremism

LaFree, Gary; Weerman, Frank M.; Bijleveld, Catrien

doi:10.1007/s10940-020-09475-5

Cited by 10 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In recent years there has been significant growth in criminological applications to the study of radicalization and terrorism with respect to a wide range of issues. To a large degree it can be said that the degree of overlap between radicalization/terrorism and other forms of deviance is greater than the degree of divergence (LaFree et al, 2020). With this being the case, we hope that this review will serve as a source of inspiration for better integrating the rich study of media effects into the radicalization research agenda.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The current evidence suggests that the field could benefit greatly from recent contributions from criminology to the field of radicalization and terrorism research, including the application of both theoretical and methodological frameworks (LaFree et al, 2020). As demonstrated by our results, theories such as Social Learning Theory and Social Control Theory may provide prisms through which to test hypotheses.…”

Section: Authors' Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

What are the effects of different elements of media on radicalization outcomes? A systematic review

Wolfowicz

Hasisi

Weisburd

2022

Campbell Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Most national counter‐radicalization strategies identify the media, and particularly the Internet as key sources of risk for radicalization. However, the magnitude of the relationships between different types of media usage and radicalization remains unknown. Additionally, whether Internet‐related risk factors do indeed have greater impacts than other forms of media remain another unknown. Overall, despite extensive research of media effects in criminology, the relationship between media and radicalization has not been systematically investigated. Objectives This systematic review and meta‐analysis sought to (1) identify and synthesize the effects of different media‐related risk factors at the individual level, (2) identify the relative magnitudes of the effect sizes for the different risk factors, and (3) compare the effects between outcomes of cognitive and behavioral radicalization. The review also sought to examine sources of heterogeneity between different radicalizing ideologies. Search Methods Electronic searches were carried out in several relevant databases and inclusion decisions were guided by a published review protocol. In addition to these searches, leading researchers were contacted to try and identify unpublished or unidentified research. Hand searches of previously published reviews and research were also used to supplement the database searches. Searches were carried out until August 2020. Selection Criteria The review included quantitative studies that examined at least one media‐related risk factor (such as exposure to, or usage of a particular medium or mediated content) and its relationship to either cognitive or behavioral radicalization at the individual level. Data Collection and Analysis Random‐effects meta‐analysis was used for each risk factor individually and risk factors were arranged in rank‐order. Heterogeneity was explored using a combination of moderator analysis, meta‐regression, and sub‐group analysis. Results The review included 4 experimental and 49 observational studies. Most of the studies were judged to be of low quality and suffer from multiple, potential sources of bias. From the included studies, effect sizes pertaining to 23 media‐related risk factors were identified and analyzed for the outcome of cognitive radicalization, and two risk factors for the outcome of behavioral radicalization. Experimental evidence demonstrated that mere exposure to media theorized to increase cognitive radicalization was associated with a small increase in risk (g = 0.08, 95% confidence interval [CI] [−0.03, 19]). A slightly larger estimate was observed for those high in trait aggression (g = 0.13, 95% CI [0.01, 0.25]). Evidence from observational studies shows that for cognitive radicalization, risk factors such as television usage have no effect (r = 0.01, 95% CI [−0.06, 0.09]). However, passive (r = 0.24, 95% CI [0.18, 0.31]) and active (r = 0.22, 95% CI [0.15, 0.29]) forms of exposure to radical content online demonstrate small but potentially meaningful relationsh...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Authors' Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 98%

What are the effects of different elements of media on radicalization outcomes? A systematic review

Wolfowicz

Hasisi

Weisburd

2022

Campbell Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While people with loose bonds to conventional society have always been part of the recruitment pool for political violence, they seem to have become more central in recent years (Rostami et al, 2020), and thus these questions maintain relevance. In recent years, Western Europe has experienced a sharp increase in the lethality of attacks motivated by anti-immigration beliefs (LaFree et al, 2020). Not only this is an urgent social problem which warrants thorough examination of how bonds in the Nordics affect radical violence, but it may also further the perception of marginalization among some groups, fuelling a negative spiral.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Internationally, research into radicalization that leads to violent extremism has made steady strides in the last several years. This progress has been facilitated by EU funding and the availability of large datasets on individual-level radicalism (LaFree et al, 2020). Europe-specific databases, such as Terrorism in Western Europe: Event Data (TWEED) and the Global Terrorism Database (GTD), focus on macro data, events, locations, and broad statistics on terrorism.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can social bonds and social learning theories help explain radical violent extremism?

Pritchett

Møller

2022

Nordic Journal of Criminology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Radical violent extremism is a growing concern for the Nordic countries. In this interest, we examine how traditional criminological theories can help to explain the difference between violent and non-violent radical extremist individuals. We analyse the Profiles of Individuals Radicalized in the United States (PIRUS) dataset, with information on 2148 radical criminals in the United States, using a logistic regression, wherein violence was the dependent variable. The independent variables corresponded to aspects of social bonds and social learning. Results indicate that social bond theory has little predictive value for violence among radical criminals. Social learning perspectives were somewhat more predictive, with radical peers having a significant positive effect on the likelihood of radical violence. Socio-economic status, ideology and criminal history had significant positive effects as well. We conclude by exploring theoretical explanations, further research implications and discuss a Nordic version of a database.

show abstract

“…The criminogenic factors also point to the utility and relevance of criminological perspectives for understanding and explaining radicalization (LaFree et al, 2020 Theory, each of which have been suggested as useful frameworks for understanding radicalization (Figure 6).…”

Section: Radical Attitudesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cognitive and behavioral radicalization: A systematic review of the putative risk and protective factors

Wolfowicz

Litmanovitz

Weisburd

et al. 2021

Campbell Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Two of the most central questions in radicalization research are, (1) why do some individuals radicalize when most of those from the same groups or exposed to similar conditions do not? and (2) why do radicalized individuals turn to radical violence while the majority remain inert? It has been suggested that the answer to both questions lie in the cumulative and interactive effects of a range of risk factors. While risk assessment and counter‐radicalization take a risk‐protective factor approach, there is widespread debate as to what these factors are and which are most important. Objectives This review has two primary objectives. 1) To identify what the putative risk and protective factors for different radicalization outcomes are, without any predeterminations. 2) To synthesize the evidence and identify the relative magnitude of the effects of different factors. The review's secondary objectives are to: 1) Identify consistencies in the estimates of factors across different radicalization outcomes. 2) Identify whether any significant heterogeneity exists within factors between (a) geographic regions, and (b) strains of radicalizing ideologies. Search Methods Over 20 databases were searched for both published and gray literature. In order to provide a more comprehensive review, supplementary searches were conducted in two German and one Dutch database. Reference harvesting was conducted from previous reviews and contact was made with leading researchers to identify and acquire missing or unpublished studies. Selection Criteria The review included observational studies assessing the outcomes of radical attitudes, intentions, and/or radical behaviors in OECD countries and which provided sufficient data to calculate effect sizes for individual‐level risk and protective factors. Data Collection and Analysis One‐hundred and twenty‐seven studies, containing 206 samples met the inclusion criteria and provided 1302 effect sizes pertaining to over 100 different factors. Random effects meta‐analyses were carried out for each factor, and meta‐regression and moderator analysis were used to explore differences across studies. Results Studies were primarily cross‐sectional, with samples representing 20 countries OECD countries. Most studies examined no specific radicalizing ideology, while others focussed on specific ideologies (e.g., Islamist, right‐wing, and left‐wing ideologies). The studies generally demonstrated low risk of bias and utilized validated or widely acceptable measures for both indicators and outcomes. With some exceptions, sociodemographic factors tend to have the smallest estimates, with larger estimates for experiential and attitudinal factors, followed by traditional criminogenic and psychological factors. Authors' Conclusions While sociodemographic factors are the most commonly examined factors (selective availability), they also tend to have the smallest estimates. So too, attitudinal and even experiential factors, do not have effect sizes of the magnitude that could lead to significa...

show abstract

Editor’s Introduction: Terrorism and Violent Extremism

Cited by 10 publications

References 17 publications

What are the effects of different elements of media on radicalization outcomes? A systematic review

What are the effects of different elements of media on radicalization outcomes? A systematic review

Can social bonds and social learning theories help explain radical violent extremism?

Cognitive and behavioral radicalization: A systematic review of the putative risk and protective factors

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About