Counter‐narratives for the prevention of violent radicalisation: A systematic review of targeted interventions

Abstract

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...

Individual and Environmental Explanations for Violent Extremist Intentions: A German Nationally Representative Survey Study

“…Therefore, effective P/CVE approaches could also challenge the underlying ideology of extremist groups by providing counter-narratives and by tackling those grievances which led to the engagement with the ideology in the first place. However, the evidence base for counter-narratives' efficacy is still in its infancy (Carthy, Doody, Cox, O'Hora, & Sarma, 2020). Violent radicalization is a process with a different set of strategies required for different stages along the way.…”

PROTOCOL: Mental disorder, psychological problems and terrorist behaviour: A systematic review

“…Our search strategy aligns with Cochrane Training and our past reviews for both the Cochrane Collaboration (Doody et al, 2019) and the Campbell Collaboration (Carthy et al, 2020). It is also informed by Kugley and colleagues' guidance on information retrieval for Campbell systematic reviews (Kugley et al, 2017).…”

Two sides of the same coin? The persuasiveness of one-sided vs. two-sided narratives in the context of radicalization prevention

“…Especially in radicalization prevention, the question arises which kind of narrative is most effective regarding attitude change and the promotion of pro-democratic behaviors (RAN, 2018). Until now, there are no studies investigating potentially differing effects of one-sided and two-sided narratives on attitude change; in general, research regarding the effectiveness of CVE/PVE narratives is scarce (see also Carthy, Doody, Cox, O'Hora, & Sarma, 2020). Yet only one study shows that videos challenging extremist content which presented one-sided arguments against extremism evoked fewer positive emotions and were remembered worse than videos providing different perspectives (Frischlich et al, 2018).…”