No abstract

Objective: This paper applies Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory to explain the role of exposure to violent extremist content online in the wider psychological process of "radicalization." Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory is a suitable theory to apply to this domain given that (a) the motivation to engage in violent extremism is widely discussed, yet motivational theories are rarely applied and (b) current risk factors for engagement in violent extremist behavior show a high degree of overlap with core Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory variables (e.g., impulsivity and social dominance). Method: This study uses an experimental design in which 479 participants from Amazon's Mechanical Turk were randomly assigned one of two short vignettes (violent extremist/violent nonextremist) to frame the content of a social mediabased behavioral task. The effect of exposure to violent extremist content online on intentions for political mobilization was measured via the Activism and Radicalism Intentions Scale. Results: While exposure to online violent extremist content did not increase tendencies for political mobilization, Behavioral Activation System traits were positively associated with the willingness to engage with violent extremist content online and with intentions for political mobilization. Conclusions: Behavioral Activation System traits provide a possible avenue to explain individual differences in the process of radicalization and the potential relevance of Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory for theories of radicalization provides further evidence that new knowledge that can be gleaned by applying established psychological theories to the study of radicalization.

In responding to the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19), health-care workers have been exposed to a range of traumatic experiences, including the management of ventilators; provision of treatment; and issues with access to and the use of personal protective equipment. In this commentary, we use recent research on military decision-making to outline the damaging psychological effects of experiences that violate deeply held values.

Individuals in positions of power are often required to make high-stakes decisions. The approach-inhibition theory of social power holds that elevated power activates approach-related tendencies, leading to decisiveness and action orientation. However, naturalistic decision-making research has often reported that increased power often has the opposite effect and causes more avoidant decision-making. To investigate the potential activation of avoidance-related tendencies in response to elevated power, this study employed an immersive scenario-based battery of least-worst decisions (the Least-Worst Uncertain Choice Inventory for Emergency Responses; LUCIFER) with members of the United States Armed Forces. In line with previous naturalistic decision-making research on the effect of power, this research found that in conditions of higher power, individuals found decisions more difficult and were more likely to make an avoidant choice. Furthermore, this effect was more pronounced in domain-specific decisions for which the individual had experience. These findings expand our understanding of when, and in what contexts, power leads to approach vs. avoidant tendencies, as well as demonstrate the benefits of bridging methodological divides that exist between “in the lab” and “in the field” when studying high-uncertainty decision-making.

No abstract