Executive summary/Abstract Background In the field of terrorism research, the violent radicalisation of individuals towards perpetrating acts of terror has been the subject of academic enquiry for some time. One core focus by social scientists has been the role of narratives in this process. Narratives have the ability to present a socially constructed version of reality which serves the interest of the narrator(s). In the context of terrorism, by depicting violence as a viable antidote to individual vulnerabilities, the narratives purported for propagandistic purposes have the potential to thwart perceptions of instrumentality (a key characteristic of violent radicalisation). In order to prevent this from happening, researchers and counter‐terrorism practitioners have increasingly sought to explore the potential for counter‐narratives; targeted interventions that challenge the rationalisation(s) of violence purported in dominant narratives which, in turn, reconstructs the story. However, there is overwhelming consensus in both government and academic spheres that the concept of the counter‐narrative is underdeveloped and, to date, there has been no synthesis of its effectiveness at targeting violent radicalisation‐related outcomes. Objectives The objective of this review was to provide a synthesis of the effectiveness of counter‐narratives in reducing the risk of violent radicalisation. Search Methods After a scoping exercise, the literature was identified through four search stages, including key‐word searches of 12 databases, hand searches of reference lists of conceptual papers or books on the topic of counter‐narratives, as well as direct contact with experts and professional agencies in the field. Selection Criteria Studies adopting an experimental or quasiexperimental design where at least one of the independent variables involved comparing a counter‐narrative to a control (or comparison exposure) were included in the review. Data Collection and Analysis Accounting for duplicates, a total of 2,063 records were identified across two searches. Nineteen studies across 15 publications met the inclusion criteria. These studies were largely of moderate quality and 12 used randomised control trial designs with varying types of controls. The publication years ranged from 2000 to 2018, with the majority of studies published after 2015. The studies represented a range of geographical locations, but the region most heavily represented was North America. In most cases, the dominant narrative(s) “to‐be‐countered” comprised of hostile social constructions of an adversary or “out‐group”. The majority of studies challenged these dominant narratives through the use of stereotype‐challenging, prosocial, or moral “exemplars”. Other techniques included the use of alternative accounts, inoculation and persuasion. Results In terms of risk factors for violent radicalisation, there was some disparity on intervention effectiveness. Overall, when pooling all outcomes, the intervention showed a small effect. However, the observed ef...
Background: The link between mental health difficulties and terrorist behaviour has been the subject of debate for the last 50 years. Studies that report prevalence rates of mental health difficulties in terrorist samples or compare rates for those involved and not involved in terrorism, can inform this debate and the work of those responsible for countering violent extremism.Objectives: To synthesise the prevalence rates of mental health difficulties in terrorist samples (Objective 1-Prevalence) and prevalence of mental health disorders pre-dating involvement in terrorism (Objective 2-Temporality). The review also synthesises the extent to which mental health difficulties are associated with terrorist involvement compared to non-terrorist samples (Objective 3-Risk Factor).Search Methods: Searches were conducted between April and June 2022, capturing research until December 2021. We contacted expert networks, hand-searched specialist journals, harvested records from published reviews, and examined references lists for included papers to identify additional studies.Selection Criteria: Studies needed to empirically examine mental health difficulties and terrorism. To be included under Objective 1 (Prevalence) and Objective 2 (Temporality), studies had to adopt cross-sectional, cohort, or case-control design and report prevalence rates of mental health difficulties in terrorist samples, with studies under Objective 2 also needing to report prevalence of difficulties before detection or involvement in terrorism. For Objective 3 (Risk Factor) studies where there was variability in terrorist behaviour (involved vs. not involved) were included.Data Collection and Analysis: Captured records were screened in DisillterSR by two authors. Risk of bias was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute checklists, and random-effects meta-analysis conducted in Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software.Results: Fifty-six papers reporting on 73 different terrorist samples (i.e., studies) (n = 13,648) were identified. All were eligible for Objective 1. Of the 73 studies, 10
Galway, under the supervision of Dr Kiran Sarma. Sarah Carthy will coordinate and conduct the review. Colm Doody will act as second coder for the study selection process. Dr O'Hora and Dr Sarma will supervise the review.
This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows:the first objective of the review (Objective 1-Prevalence) is to present a synthesis of the reported prevalence rates of mental health difficulties in terrorist samples.Where sufficient data is available, the synthesis will be sensitive to the heterogeneity of the terrorism phenomenon by exploring the rates of mental health difficulties for different forms of terrorism and for different terrorist roles (e.g., bombing, logistics, finance, etc.). The second objective (Objective 2-Temporality) will synthesise the extent to which mental health difficulties pre-date involvement in terrorism within prevalence studies. Finally, the third objective (Objective 3-Risk) aims to further establish temporality by examining the extent to which the presence of mental disorder is associated with terrorist involvement by comparing terrorist and non-terrorist samples.
This study presents the findings of a laboratory-based experiment testing hypothesised processes implicated in the prevention of violent radicalisation through counter-narratives. The central aims of the study were to contribute to counter-narrative theory, whilst highlighting the value of experimental methodologies that can be deployed in this area of scientific enquiry. Two counter-narrative strategies were evaluated against a dominant terrorist narrative. Considering the role of cognition in the processing of narrativerelated information, participants' (n = 150) Cognitive Reflection and Need for Cognition were measured before they were randomly assigned to a narrative that legitimized terrorist violence, one of two counter-narratives, or a control. Returning autonomy to the target by having them actively counter terrorist rhetoric themselves was found to be more effective than offering generic counter-narratives. Notwithstanding the challenges and limitations associated with measuring violent radicalization-related constructs, the findings of the experiment demonstrate the extent to which individuals vary in their susceptibility to violent, terrorist narratives, as well as attempts to counter them.
Why does one person radicalize to involvement in terrorist violence within a group-based context, while another engages in this form of violence alone? Existing research remains subject to limitations related to sample size, ideological and geographical range, and contradictory findings. This article draws on a newly-developed dataset to compare group-based and lone-actor terrorists across a range of predictors. Statistically significant bivariate associations and regression analyses suggest that lone actors have fewer criminal antecedents and lower exposure to social settings that enable group-based participation in terrorism. Limited perceived social skills and high social isolation may inhibit their ability to join terrorist groups. Lone actors also have little experience with non-violent activism, and tend to radicalize at a later age.
Research summaryWe compare European and North American radicalization trajectories that led to involvement in terrorist violence (n = 103) with those for which this outcome did not occur (n = 103). Regression analyses illustrate how involvement in terrorist violence is determined not only by the presence of risk, but also the absence of protective factors. Bivariate analyses highlight the importance of considering the temporality of these factors; i.e., whether they are present before or after radicalization onset. The most salient risk factors identified were alignment with a group or movement with an exclusively violent strategic logic, and access to weapons. In terms of protective factors, parenting children during radicalization, self‐control, and participation in extremist groups with a strategic logic that was not exclusively focused on violent means were all associated with noninvolvement in terrorist violence.Policy implicationsDifferent patterns of risk and protective factors influence whether radicalization will, or will not, lead to involvement in terrorist violence. One‐size‐fits‐all radicalization‐prevention efforts may therefore be less effective than programs tailored to address a particular outcome. Even when terrorist violence is prevented, the targeted individual is likely to remain radicalized. Preventative efforts must carefully assess whether the measures used to avert terrorist violence in the short‐term risk contributing to a longer term societal threat. The efficacy of preventative efforts depends in part on when they are deployed, that is, before or after radicalization onset.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.