Distinct patterns of incidental exposure to and active selection of radicalizing information indicate varying levels of support for violent extremism

Abstract

Exposure to radicalizing information has been associated with support for violent extremism. It is, however, unclear whether specific information use behavior, namely, a distinct pattern of incidental exposure (IE) to and active selection (AS) of radicalizing content, indicates stronger violent extremist attitudes and radical action intentions. Drawing on a representative general population sample (N = 1509) and applying latent class analysis, we addressed this gap in the literature. Results highlighted six types of information use behavior. The largest group of participants reported a near to zero probability of both IE to and AS of radicalizing material. Two groups of participants were characterized by high or moderate probabilities of incidental exposure as well as a low probability of active selection of radicalizing content. The remaining groups displayed either low, moderate, or high probabilities of both IE and AS. Importantly, we showed between-group differences regarding violent extremist attitudes and radical behavioral intentions. Individuals reporting near zero or high probabilities for both IE to and AS of radicalizing information expressed the lowest and strongest violent extremist attitudes and willingness to use violence respectively. Groups defined by even moderate probabilities of AS endorsed violent extremism more strongly than those for which the probability for incidental exposure was moderate or high but AS of radicalizing content was unlikely.

Does Attitudinal Inoculation Confer Resistance to Violent Extremist Propaganda? Assessing Mechanisms, Long-term Effects, and the Advantage of Visuals

“…Thus, the latter may not be relevant for maintaining the effects of attitudinal inoculation on counter-arguing over time. Several other avenues must be explored, such as the role of memory of the inoculation stimuli itself as well as the persistence of the motivation to sustain counter-arguments in the absence of exposure to persuasive attacks from violent extremist actors, which may be the common experience for most people (see Schumann et al, 2024).…”