We present a model of radicalization and deradicalization based on the notion that the quest for personal significance constitutes a major motivational force that may push individuals toward violent extremism. Radicalization is defined as the process of supporting or engaging in activities deemed (by others) as in violation of important social norms (e.g., the killing of civilians). In these terms, radicalization (1) is a matter of degree (in which mere attitudinal support for violence reflects a lower degree of radicalization than actual engagement in violence); (2) represents a subjective judgment proffered by those for whom the violated norms seem important but not by those who have devalued or suppressed the norms in question. Our radicalization/deradicalization model contains three crucial components: (1) the motivational component (the quest for personal significance) that defines a goal to which one may be committed, (2) the ideological component that in addition identifies the means of violence as appropriate for this goal's pursuit, and (3) the social process of networking and group dynamics through which the individual comes to share in the violence‐justifying ideology and proceeds to implement it as a means of significance gain. We present empirical evidence consistent with our model's assumptions and discuss its implications for policies of preventing radicalization and effecting deradicalization.

The present studies examined the hypothesis that loss of personal significance fuels extremism via the need for cognitive closure. Situations of significance loss-those that make one feel ashamed, humiliated, or demeaned-are inconsistent with the desire for a positive self-image, and instill a sense of uncertainty about the self. Consequently, individuals become motivated to seek certainty and closure that affords the restoration of personal significance. Extremist ideologies should thus increase in appeal, because they promise clear-cut strategies for such restoration. These notions were supported in a series of studies ranging from field surveys of political extremists imprisoned in the Philippines (Study 1) and Sri Lanka (Study 2) to experiments conducted with American samples (Studies 3-4). Implications of these findings are considered for the psychology of extremism, and for approaches to counterradicalization, and deradicalization. (PsycINFO Database Record

Jean-Jacques Rousseau's concepts of self-love (amour propre) and love of self (amour de soi même) are applied to the psychology of terrorism. Self-love is concern with one's image in the eyes of respected others, members of one's group. It denotes one's feeling of personal significance, the sense that one's life has meaning in accordance with the values of one's society. Love of self, in contrast, is individualistic concern with self-preservation, comfort, safety, and the survival of self and loved ones. We suggest that self-love defines a motivational force that when awakened arouses the goal of a significance quest. When a group perceives itself in conflict with dangerous detractors, its ideology may prescribe violence and terrorism against the enemy as a means of significance gain that gratifies self-love concerns. This may involve sacrificing one's self-preservation goals, encapsulated in Rousseau's concept of love of self. The foregoing notions afford the integration of diverse quantitative and qualitative findings on individuals' road to terrorism and back. Understanding the significance quest and the conditions of its constructive fulfillment may be crucial to reversing the current tide of global terrorism.

This book identifies the three major determinants of radicalization that progresses into violent extremism, the three Ns of radicalization. The first determinant is the need: Individuals’ universal desire for personal significance. The second determinant is the narrative. Because significance is conferred by members of one’s group, the group’s narrative guides members in their quest for significance. The third determinant is the network: membership of one’s group who validate the narrative and who dispense rewards (respect and veneration) to members who implement it. The quest for significance is activated in one of three major ways: (a) through a loss of significance occasioned by personal failure or affront to one’s social identity (e.g., ethnicity, religion, race), (b) through a threat of significance loss if one failed to respond to a challenge or to defend one’s group values, and/or (c) through an opportunity for a significance gain (e.g., becoming a hero or a martyr) by selflessly defending one’s group values. In groups that see their values (e.g., religion, sovereignty, culture) under threat from some (real or imagined) actor, the narrative often justifies violence against the detractor and portrays it as a supreme road to significance. Especially where violence is contrary to the norms of the mainstream society, validation of the violence–significance link by the local network is particularly important. The present 3N model of radicalization and the varied empirical evidence that supports it are leveraged to interpret prior theories of radicalization and to address major issues in the domains of deradicalization and recidivism.

Quest for significance theory (Kruglanski et al., 2013;Kruglanski, Jasko, Chernikova, Dugas, & Webber 2017) states that extreme behavior for an ideological cause is more likely under psychological conditions that induce a search for significance and social recognition. Two forms of motivation for significance have been identified; the quest for individual significance rooted in personal experiences and the quest for collective significance rooted in the perception that one's social group is humiliated and/or disrespected. Whereas past research has demonstrated associations between both forms of quest for significance and political extremism, there is little understanding of the conditions that moderate those effects.In the present study, we tested the moderating role of belonging to radical versus nonradical social context. Four studies were conducted in three different cultural settings: Sri Lanka (Study 1, n ϭ 335), Morocco (Study 2, n ϭ 260), and Indonesia (Study 3, n ϭ 379 and Study 4, n ϭ 334). Each study compared the responses from participants residing in social contexts that were more or less radical. Radical social contexts were identified based either on participants' belonging to known extremist organizations (Studies 1, 3, and 4) or residence within a locale that is a known hotbed for recruitment into terrorist organizations (Study 2). Across studies, we found evidence that radical social contexts strengthen the link between quest for significance-particularly collective significance-and support for political violence.