Emotional Correlates of Radicalization and Terrorism

Perspectives on Terrorism, 2012

Keeping up-to-date with new research on terrorism can be challenging for both academic and non-academic researchers, with a multitude of books, articles and reports of varying degrees of quality being produced continuously. Andrew Silke noted that the publication of books on terrorism nearly jumped tenfold after 9/11, from 150 titles in 2000 to 1108 the following year, and 1767 in 2002 [1]. If one searches for books on terrorism with www.amazon.com one decade later, one gets over 30,000 results and the sub-genre 'radicalisation' already produces in excess of 300 books. Research on radicalisation took off in 2004 in response to the blowback from the American intervention in Iraq the year before. The London bombings in 2005 generated further interest in the phenomenon of "homegrown terrorism", where apparently self-starting cells of radicalising individuals mobilized against their host countries with little or no material support from foreign terrorist entities. This has created a whole new field of empirical inquiry.

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

International Studies: Interdisciplinary Political and Cultural Journal, 2015

After the London bombings in July 2005, the concern of terrorism scholars and policy makers has turned to "home-grown" terrorism and potential for political violence from within the states� "Radicalization" became a new buzz word� This article follows a number of reviews of the literature on radicalization and offers another angle for looking at this research� First, it discusses the term "radicalization" and suggests the use of the following definition of radicalization as a process by which a person adopts belief systems which justify the use of violence to effect social change and comes to actively support as well as employ violent means for political purposes. Next, it proposes to see the theories of radicalization focusing on the individual and the two dimensions of his/her motivation: whether that motivation is internal or external and whether it is due to personal choice or either internal (due to some psychological traits) or external compulsion� Though not all theories fall neatly within these categories, they make it possible to make comparisons of contributions from a variety of different areas thus reflecting on the interdisciplinary nature of the study of terrorism in general and radicalization as a part of it�

The European Legacy, 2019

Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 2021

The current paper investigates Psychoanalytic, Cognitive, Behaviorist, and Sociocultural theories and critiques how they have (or might have) contributed to the study of radicalization. The paper asserts two arguments that lack emphasis in the current radicalization research: 1) radicalization refers to a process, and does not always refer to violent behavior; 2) radicalization research needs to pay tribute to socio-cultural, political, and historical context while designing research and discussing findings. These two points are essential to extend the concept of radicalization and to be sensitive to different research contexts and populations. Currently, the conceptualization of radicalization appears to be generalized to violent action among minority groups (mainly Muslims) in limited contexts (mostly Western countries). The article claims that Psychology can better contribute to this diverse field of interest with its well-established theoretical contributions to the understanding of human beings and its compassion to seek differences amongst people across different contexts.

Successful radicalization posits three outcomes: extremism, terrorism or both. As these are undesirable, radicalization is understood as wholly malevolent and governments work to prevent and/or stop it. Nonetheless, a handful of scholars have recognized that the same radicalization process which results in either outcome may, theoretically at least, also have beneficial outcomes such as environmental awareness or human rights. This article explores one such outcome. Based on interviews with British Muslim aid workers (n=6) operating in Jihadist conflict zones post Arab spring and using constructivist grounded theory, it illustrates how the research participants radicalized to humanitarianism which resulted in them assisting the most plighted of Muslims by deploying to the most wanton of areas: ones commonly referred to as Jihadist conflict zones. Evidently, these destinations are shared with Jihadists and given the array of other observable similarities (socio-demographics and [pre-]mobilization behaviours), these morally opposed groups become conflated by the security services. This is further compounded by the fact that Jihadists manipulate and/or impersonate aid workers so as to funnel people and funds. To distinguish both, this article documents the benevolent pathway of the research participants and juxtaposes it to scholarly knowledge on Jihadist pathways. Socialization was revealed to be the key distinguishing feature rather than descriptive risk factors (such as ideology or moral outrage) because the process of radicalization was not found to be the start of the radicalized pathway. It concludes that benevolently radicalized Islamic groups constitute an effective means of pathway divergence for particular typologies by offering an attractive and prosocial alternative to Jihadism. This strengths-based preventative approach (“what’s right”) takes the form of a community-centric market competitor to Jihadism rather than a problem-based approach (“what’s wrong”) which only targets those at risk, but inadvertently tars the whole community in the process.

Workshop: The Narrative of Islamic violence in History. Creation, artifice and reality, 2018

Narratives that consider Islam as a violent religion have been reinforced in recent times by the rise of jihadism, i.e. those radical Islamist movements that advocate the use of violence through a distorted concept of jihad. At present, jihadism represents a global movement with a considerable popular base of followers even in secular Western societies. One of the characteristics of jihadist organizations is their ability to commit attacks in these Western societies, either directly and deliberately or through inspiring and encouraging the creation of autonomous cells. This fact, on the one hand, has led the respective governments to declare jihadist terrorism as one of the main threats to security. But, on the other hand, it has also contributed to the association between Islam and violence, a tendency that, although clearly erroneous and unjust, often becomes inevitable. However, recent research suggests that the process of violent radicalization of jihadist nature that some individuals experience in Western societies does not differ essentially from other processes based on political or nationalist ideologies. If this hypothesis is confirmed, the different political, religious, etc. contexts where the process of radicalization takes root would lose relevance in favor of the individual and the interpretation he makes of each of them. In other words, the arguments that support the consideration of Islam as a violent religion would lose weight in favor of the misuse, intentional or not, that some individuals make of religion to satisfy their own ends.

Crime Law and Social Change, 2011

When, why, and how do people living in a democracy become radicalized to the point of being willing to use or directly support the use of terrorist violence against civilians, and when, why, and how might they de-radicalize and draw back from such action? The empirical basis for understanding the background factors and trigger events pushing or pulling people towards Islamist militancy is very limited. Moreover, there is no consensus within the research community as to which theories and approaches offer the most promising avenues for further exploration". -A. Dalgaard-Nielsen, DIIS WP no. 2008/3:17.