The Quest for Significance: Attitude Adaption to a Radical Group Following Social Exclusion

Bäck, Emma; Bäck, Hanna; Altermark, Niklas; Knapton, Holly

doi:10.3233/dev-170230

Cited by 32 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We suggest that future research take up this opportunity. Based on the literature discussing social exclusion as a cause of significance loss (Bäck et al 2018; Kruglanski et al, 2009; Kruglanski & Orehek, 2011; Williams, 2012), we believe significance loss is most likely the mechanism when social exclusion affects radicalization.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…An important aspect of the present research is that we do not make any claims about what should be considered “radical.” That is, our dependent measures of willingness to engage with a radical group or identification should not per se be considered radical, but rather a step in a more radical direction. As radicalization is conceived of as a process (Kruglanski & Webber, 2014), it is of highest priority to understand such steps (Bäck et al, 2018).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An individual may experience lost significance due to different forms of individual- or group-based humiliation, shame or dishonor. In line with this, social exclusion has been argued to induce significance loss and awaken the quest for significance (Bäck et al 2018; Jasko et al, 2017; Kruglanski et al, 2009; Kruglanski & Orehek, 2011; Williams, 2012), and has previously been related to religious fundamentalism (Gijsberts, 2004; Phalet & Ter Wal, 2004; Verkuyten & Yildiz, 2007). Sympathizing or engaging with extremist groups presents an opportunity for significance—by aligning with a radical ideology and a radical group, significance can be restored (Kruglanski et al, 2014).…”

Section: Theory and Previous Research On Radicalizationmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…We suggest that future research take up this opportunity. Based on the literature discussing social exclusion as a cause of significance loss (Bäck et al 2018;…”

Section: Future Directions Limitations and Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Even though the research field of radicalization has grown rapidly over the last two decades, much research still relies on biographies and interviews with former terrorists (Borum, 2010). With a few notable exceptions, experimental research that increases the understanding of the radicalization process is still limited (Bäck et al, 2018; Hales & Williams, 2018; Knapton et al, 2015; Pfundmair & Wetherell, 2019).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Exploring a pathway to radicalization: The effects of social exclusion and rejection sensitivity

Renström

Bäck

Knapton

2020

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article aims to explore if social exclusion can constitute a pathway to radicalization, and if individual level of sensitivity of rejection moderates the effect of social exclusion. Humans innately seek belonging and meaning, and strive for re-establishing a sense of value and belongingness if faced with social exclusion. One way to achieve this is by adherence to a new and inviting group. In four studies, we test to what extent individuals who face social exclusion adapt to a radical including group. In Studies 1 ( n = 104) and 2 ( n = 308), we use a social media-like paradigm to manipulate social exclusion. In Study 3 ( n = 1041), we use the so-called Cyberball paradigm, and in Study 4 ( n = 40) we use a real-life manipulation. All studies show that rejected individuals who are sensitive to rejection are more prone to identify with, engage with and endorse an extreme group. The results hold over both ideological (Studies 1–3) and non-ideological (Study 4) content. Only the last study showed a main effect of social exclusion. We discuss the results in reference to the significance loss model of radicalization.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Theory and Previous Research On Radicalizationmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…We suggest that future research take up this opportunity. Based on the literature discussing social exclusion as a cause of significance loss (Bäck et al 2018;…”

Section: Future Directions Limitations and Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Exploring a pathway to radicalization: The effects of social exclusion and rejection sensitivity

Renström

Bäck

Knapton

2020

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Preventing radicalization leading to violence: Insights from the significance quest theory and its 3N model

Silva

Amadio

Sarg

et al. 2022

Community & Applied Soc Psy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Radicalization leading to violence is a major societal issue all over the globe. In order to prevent its increase and expansion, measures need to be taken at different instances and levels. In the present narrative review, to inform evidence‐based practices, we bring together numerous applied recommendations made by scholars studying the psychological underpinnings of radicalization within the framework of the Significance Quest Theory and its 3N model. The applied recommendations target at least one of the three elements of the 3N model (i.e., need, narrative, and network) in at least one of the three levels of prevention (i.e., primary, secondary, and tertiary). In the discussion, we highlight which of these are still lacking empirical evaluation, which might be problematic and why, and how policymakers, practitioners, and researchers can work together to provide an integrative model of intervention addressing both the need for significance and the influence of radical narratives and groups. Please refer to the Supplementary Material section to find this article's Community and Social Impact Statement.

show abstract

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

The Quest for Significance: Attitude Adaption to a Radical Group Following Social Exclusion

Cited by 32 publications

References 39 publications

Exploring a pathway to radicalization: The effects of social exclusion and rejection sensitivity

Exploring a pathway to radicalization: The effects of social exclusion and rejection sensitivity

Preventing radicalization leading to violence: Insights from the significance quest theory and its 3N model

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About