Are They Terrorist Sympathizers or do They Just Disagree with the War on Terror? A Comment on Testing Theories of Radicalization in Polls of U.S. Muslims

McGarty, Craig; Thomas, Emma F.; Louis, Winnifred R.

doi:10.1111/j.1530-2415.2012.01293.x

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The value of conceptualizing radicalization in this group-centric way is threefold: First, we can leverage recent research in other domains on how social identification develops and how mobilization occurs to understand how and why people engage and disengage with violent (and nonviolent) groups. This may help to explain why identifying with nonviolent radical actions or ideologies does not necessarily represent a position on a conveyor belt that leads to violence: The norms of the target group can be violent versus nonviolent (Khalil, 2017; McGarty, Thomas, & Louis, 2012). Identifying with one does not necessarily entail identifying with the other (Louis, McGarty, Thomas, Amiot, & Moghaddam, 2018).…”

Section: Conceptual Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Need to Refocus on the Group as the Site of Radicalization

Smith

Blackwood

Thomas

2019

Perspect Psychol Sci

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The past decade has witnessed burgeoning efforts among governments to prevent people from developing a commitment to violent extremism (conceived of as a process of radicalization). These interventions acknowledge the importance of group processes yet in practice primarily focus on the idiosyncratic personal vulnerabilities that lead people to engage in violence. This conceptualization is problematic because it disconnects the individual from the group and fails to adequately address the role of group processes in radicalization. To address this shortcoming, we propose a genuinely social psychological account of radicalization as an alternative. We draw on recent developments in theory and research in psychological science to suggest that radicalization is fundamentally a group socialization process through which people develop identification with a set of norms—that may be violent or nonviolent—through situated social interactions that leverage their shared perceptions and experiences. Our alternative provides a way of understanding shifts toward violent extremism that are caused by both the content (focal topics) and process of social interactions. This means that people’s radicalization to violence is inseparable from the social context in which their social interactions take place.

show abstract

Section: Conceptual Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Need to Refocus on the Group as the Site of Radicalization

Smith

Blackwood

Thomas

2019

Perspect Psychol Sci

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We recognize at the outset that pyramid figures (e.g., Figure 1) can be problematic because they (implicitly) suggest that sympathetic support or activism is an antecedent to the commitment to political violence (see Leuprecht, McCauley, & Skillicorn, in press; McGarty, Thomas, & Louis, 2012). Figure 1 is not intended to be read in that way.…”

Section: A Person-centred Intergroup Perspective On Support For Animamentioning

confidence: 99%

Vegetarian, vegan, activist, radical: Using latent profile analysis to examine different forms of support for animal welfare

Thomas¹,

Bury

Louis

et al. 2019

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There are many different ways that people can express their support for the animals that exist in factory farms. This study draws on insights from the social identity approach, and adopts novel methods (latent profile analysis [LPA]) to examine the qualitatively different subgroups or profiles that comprise broader community positions on this issue. North American participants ( N = 578) completed measures of the frequency with which they engaged in 18 different animal welfare actions. LPA identified 3 meaningful profiles: ambivalent omnivores ( n = 410; people who occasionally limited their consumption of meat/animal products), a lifestyle activist group ( n = 134; limited their consumption of animal/meat products and engaged in political actions), and a vegetarian radical group ( n = 34; strictly limited their consumption of animal/meat products and engaged in both political and radical actions). Membership of the 3 populations was predicted by different balances of social identities (supporter of animal welfare, vegan/vegetarian, solidarity with animals), and markers of politicization and/or radicalization. Results reveal the utility of adopting person-centred methods to study political engagement and extremism generally, and highlight heterogeneity in the ways that people respond to the harms perpetrated against animals.

show abstract

“…McGarty, Thomas, and Louis (2012) initially criticized McCauley for a weak conceptualization of sympathy for terrorism. They argue that the data presented by McCauley do not address the predictors of sympathy for terrorism in a comprehensive manner.…”

Section: Background and Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Religiosity and Political Islam: Divergent Influences on Support for Terrorism

Cubukcu,

Cinoglu,

Ozeren

2023

Int. ann. criminol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines the intricate relationship between religion and attitudes towards terrorist violence, with a specific focus on individual sympathy for al-Qaeda and justification for suicide bombings. While religion has the capacity to promote both harmony and social cohesion, as well as division and conflict, it is crucial to explore the complex and contradictory nature of religious beliefs in relation to individuals’ attitudes towards terrorism. To address this paradox, the study differentiates between religion as a belief and religion as an ideology. Drawing from a subset of the 2011 Pew Global Attitudes Survey, encompassing countries with substantial Muslim populations (Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey), the research investigates how religiosity and political Islam influence public attitudes towards terrorism, considering political and economic grievances in these contexts. Multivariate statistical analysis suggests that religiosity and political Islam exhibit distinct associations with the justification of suicide bombings and support for al-Qaeda, and these dynamics vary across countries. Ultimately, the study underscores the importance of perceiving religiosity not as a threat but as a potential remedy to prevent extremism by fostering an educated and deeper understanding of religious principles.

show abstract

Are They Terrorist Sympathizers or do They Just Disagree with the War on Terror? A Comment on Testing Theories of Radicalization in Polls of U.S. Muslims

Cited by 5 publications

References 13 publications

The Need to Refocus on the Group as the Site of Radicalization

The Need to Refocus on the Group as the Site of Radicalization

Vegetarian, vegan, activist, radical: Using latent profile analysis to examine different forms of support for animal welfare

Religiosity and Political Islam: Divergent Influences on Support for Terrorism

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About