The Need to Refocus on the Group as the Site of Radicalization

Abstract

The past decade has witnessed burgeoning efforts among governments to prevent people from developing a commitment to violent extremism (conceived of as a process of radicalization). These interventions acknowledge the importance of group processes yet in practice primarily focus on the idiosyncratic personal vulnerabilities that lead people to engage in violence. This conceptualization is problematic because it disconnects the individual from the group and fails to adequately address the role of group processes in radicalization. To address this shortcoming, we propose a genuinely social psychological account of radicalization as an alternative. We draw on recent developments in theory and research in psychological science to suggest that radicalization is fundamentally a group socialization process through which people develop identification with a set of norms—that may be violent or nonviolent—through situated social interactions that leverage their shared perceptions and experiences. Our alternative provides a way of understanding shifts toward violent extremism that are caused by both the content (focal topics) and process of social interactions. This means that people’s radicalization to violence is inseparable from the social context in which their social interactions take place.

Does negatively toned language use on social media lead to attitude polarization?

“…Second, attitude polarization of a user could be determined by the contributions that other NETWORK NEGATIVITY 9 people in one's communication network make (partner control). The idea that polarization is mainly driven by others in one's network is consistent with identity-based accounts of group polarization and radicalization (Mackie, 1986;Smith et al, 2020), and also with research on digital emotion contagion (Goldenberg & Gross, 2020). Third, polarization of a user could be determined by the degree to which the sentiment of one's own contributions and the sentiment of others in a network are matched (joint control).…”

The Volatility of Collective Action: Theoretical Analysis and Empirical Data

“…Consistent with this point, empirical research links social interaction (that is, active discussion, negotiation, and debate) with increasing mobilization ; see also Bongiorno, McGarty, Kurz, Haslam, & Sibley, 2016;Thomas et al, 2016;. Similar processes of interaction and debate-under the right sociopolitical conditions-are also implicated in shifts towards extremism (Smith et al, 2020;Thomas et al, 2014).…”

“…In short, for groups, as for individuals, it would be a mistake to attribute particular tactical choices to the disposition of the collective actors alone. Rather, attention should be directed towards their perceptions of the-often changing-context and the intergroup relationship (see also Smith, Blackwood, & Thomas, 2020). Outside the political relationship of state and protesters, scholars have documented reactive, increasing radicalization in other forms of collective action, for example, between nations in arms races (e.g., Plous, 1985); between movement and countermobilizing movement (e.g., Andits, 2016); or between social groups in mutual dehumanization (e.g., Kteily, Hodson, & Bruneau, 2016).…”

Social Representations of Sociopolitical Groups on r/The_Donald and Emergent Conflict Narratives: A Qualitative Content Analysis

“…Subscribers of r/The_Donald arguably formed an opinion‐based social identity based upon support of Donald Trump's presidency and policies (see Smith et al., 2015). Thus, r/The_Donald provided fertile ground for iterative articulation of social representations of that social identity and its ideological opponents (e.g., outgroups) and the ensuing processes of political polarization, and arguably, radicalization (Smith, Blackwood, & Thomas, 2020).…”