To the fringe and back: Violent extremism and the psychology of deviance.

Abstract

We outline a general psychological theory of extremism and apply it to the special case of violent extremism (VE). Extremism is defined as motivated deviance from general behavioral norms and is assumed to stem from a shift from a balanced satisfaction of basic human needs afforded by moderation to a motivational imbalance wherein a given need dominates the others. Because motivational imbalance is difficult to sustain, only few individuals do, rendering extreme behavior relatively rare, hence deviant. Thus, individual dynamics translate into social patterns wherein majorities of individuals practice moderation, whereas extremism is the province of the few. Both extremism and moderation require the ability to successfully carry out the activities that these demand. Ability is partially determined by the activities' difficulty, controllable in part by external agents who promote or oppose extremism. Application of this general framework to VE identifies the specific need that animates it and offers broad guidelines for addressing this pernicious phenomenon. (PsycINFO Database Record

From Oppression to Violence: The Role of Oppression, Radicalism, Identity, and Cultural Intelligence in Violent Disinhibition

“…According to the significance quest theory (Kruglanski et al, 2009a, 2013, 2014, 2017), the results obtained are consistent with previous studies, where it has been determined that the loss of significance (the perceived oppression in this case) can predict violent disinhibition or extremism (Webber et al, 2018). In addition, the radical intentions, understood as the willingness to carry out illegal and violent activities (Moskalenko and McCauley, 2009), act as a mediator of this relationship.…”

“…In the last decade, different theories and models have been developed to explain this complex and multivariate process. Among them, the significance quest theory (Kruglanski et al, 2009a, 2013, 2014, 2017) has obtained outstanding empirical and experimental evidence that has allowed it to reinforce some of its postulates and develop proposals for preventive intervention in the community and in risk management (Bélanger, 2017). …”

Who is more violent in extremist groups? A comparison of leaders and followers

“…Finally, compared to leaders, followers may have more to gain personally from engaging in violent action. Because violence attracts attention to its perpetrators, violent actions likely make perpetrators feel noticed and powerful, which can make it an appealing behavior to individuals who otherwise feel ignored and insignificant (Jasko, LaFree & Kruglanski, 2016;Kruglanski et al, 2017). Thus, followers may be psychologically incentivized for committing violent attacks to the extent that such attacks increase their prestige both within and outside of the group (Bloom, 2004).…”

Being resilient to radicalisation in PVE policy: a critical examination

“…Construing resilience as the ability to critique extremist narratives or propaganda can create a blind-spot to the more embedded, mainstream, narratives that also deserve a critical gaze. Rhetoric and language that feeds into a polarisation along the lines of "us and them", a polarisation that many extremist narratives rely upon (Kruglanski et al 2017;Kassimeris and Jackson 2015), are evident far beyond extremist narratives themselves. To seriously address the factors involved in the movement towards violence, it would seem necessary to also direct critical attention to mainstream ideas and narratives.…”