Local, National and Global Islam: Religious Guidance and European Muslim Public Opinion on Political Radicalism and Social Conservatism

Berger, Lars

doi:10.1080/01402382.2015.1062252

Cited by 15 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…1313As per the above, the average rate of justification of terrorism according to the 2008 European Values Survey was 5.6%. This number is similar to what has been found in Western European countries in the 2006 PEW Global Values Survey, according to which the combined response for suicide bombings being rarely, sometimes and often justified, was 4.3% (e.g., Berger, 2016; Zhirkov et al., 2014). The responses for U.S. samples have been somewhat similar.…”

supporting

confidence: 85%

What is the best approach for preventing recruitment to terrorism? Findings from ABM experiments in social and situational prevention

Weisburd

Wolfowicz

Hasisi

et al. 2022

Criminology & Public Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study uses agent-based models (ABMs) to compare the impacts of three different types of interventions targeting recruitment to terrorism-community workers at community centers; community-oriented policing; and an employment program for high-risk agents. The first two programs are social interventions that focus on de-radicalization and changing the dispositions of agents in the model, whereas the employment program focuses on "deflection" and represents a situational/opportunity reducing approach to prevention. The results show significant impacts of the community worker and community policing interventions on radicalization but no significant impact on recruitment. In contrast, the employment intervention had a strong and significant impact on recruitment, but little impact on radicalization.Policy Implications: Our ABM simulations challenge the reliance of existing programs to reduce recruitment to terrorism on counter and de-radicalization approaches. Instead they suggest that policy makers should focus more attention on deflection and opportunity reduction. At the same time, our ABMs point to the This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 85%

What is the best approach for preventing recruitment to terrorism? Findings from ABM experiments in social and situational prevention

Weisburd

Wolfowicz

Hasisi

et al. 2022

Criminology & Public Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Victimization and discrimination can lead to feelings such as anger and a desire for revenge, and accordingly increase the likelihood of radicalization (Bjørgo, 2005;Dandurand, 2014). Similar to relative deprivation perspectives, victimization or perceptions of discrimination, racism, and injustices at both the individual and group level can be risk factors for radicalization (Berger, 2016;Brettfeld & Wetzels, 2007;Bhui et al, 2014b;McCauley, 2012;Pauwels & de Waele, 2014;Simons et al, 2003;de Waele & Pauwels, 2014). When individuals view a lack of governmental action being taken to combat discrimination, it can erode existing levels of integration and institutional trust.…”

Section: Integration Trust and Discriminationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cognitive and behavioral radicalization: A systematic review of the putative risk and protective factors

Wolfowicz

Litmanovitz

Weisburd

et al. 2021

Campbell Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Two of the most central questions in radicalization research are, (1) why do some individuals radicalize when most of those from the same groups or exposed to similar conditions do not? and (2) why do radicalized individuals turn to radical violence while the majority remain inert? It has been suggested that the answer to both questions lie in the cumulative and interactive effects of a range of risk factors. While risk assessment and counter‐radicalization take a risk‐protective factor approach, there is widespread debate as to what these factors are and which are most important. Objectives This review has two primary objectives. 1) To identify what the putative risk and protective factors for different radicalization outcomes are, without any predeterminations. 2) To synthesize the evidence and identify the relative magnitude of the effects of different factors. The review's secondary objectives are to: 1) Identify consistencies in the estimates of factors across different radicalization outcomes. 2) Identify whether any significant heterogeneity exists within factors between (a) geographic regions, and (b) strains of radicalizing ideologies. Search Methods Over 20 databases were searched for both published and gray literature. In order to provide a more comprehensive review, supplementary searches were conducted in two German and one Dutch database. Reference harvesting was conducted from previous reviews and contact was made with leading researchers to identify and acquire missing or unpublished studies. Selection Criteria The review included observational studies assessing the outcomes of radical attitudes, intentions, and/or radical behaviors in OECD countries and which provided sufficient data to calculate effect sizes for individual‐level risk and protective factors. Data Collection and Analysis One‐hundred and twenty‐seven studies, containing 206 samples met the inclusion criteria and provided 1302 effect sizes pertaining to over 100 different factors. Random effects meta‐analyses were carried out for each factor, and meta‐regression and moderator analysis were used to explore differences across studies. Results Studies were primarily cross‐sectional, with samples representing 20 countries OECD countries. Most studies examined no specific radicalizing ideology, while others focussed on specific ideologies (e.g., Islamist, right‐wing, and left‐wing ideologies). The studies generally demonstrated low risk of bias and utilized validated or widely acceptable measures for both indicators and outcomes. With some exceptions, sociodemographic factors tend to have the smallest estimates, with larger estimates for experiential and attitudinal factors, followed by traditional criminogenic and psychological factors. Authors' Conclusions While sociodemographic factors are the most commonly examined factors (selective availability), they also tend to have the smallest estimates. So too, attitudinal and even experiential factors, do not have effect sizes of the magnitude that could lead to significa...

show abstract

“…Radicalisation per se has even evolved to be individual radicalisation (lone wolf radicalisation ), in which the prevention requires monitoring of the community and the Internet to detect and manage threats (Dechesne & Meines, 2012). Berger (2016) found that radicalisation has some im-278 CEJISS 4/2019 plications for Western European governments in shaping security policies and creating social cohesion. However, Vidino & Brandon (2012) suggest that the characteristics, philosophies, goals and challenges of counter-radicalisation strategies in various European countries need to consider the unique political, cultural and legal elements in each society.…”

Section: Rmt Nurhasan Affandi Windy Dermawanmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rabia Akhtar: The Blind Eye, U.S. Non-Proliferation Policy Towards Pakistan From Ford to Clinton

Tariq

2020

CEJISS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

cejiss acts as a forum for advanced exploration of international and security studies. It is the mission of cejiss to provide its readers with valuable resources regarding the current state of international and European relations and security. To that end, cejiss pledges to publish articles of only the highest calibre and make them freely available to scholars and interested members of the public in both printed and electronic forms.

show abstract

Local, National and Global Islam: Religious Guidance and European Muslim Public Opinion on Political Radicalism and Social Conservatism

Abstract: Abstract:The

Cited by 15 publications

References 47 publications

What is the best approach for preventing recruitment to terrorism? Findings from ABM experiments in social and situational prevention

What is the best approach for preventing recruitment to terrorism? Findings from ABM experiments in social and situational prevention

Cognitive and behavioral radicalization: A systematic review of the putative risk and protective factors

Rabia Akhtar: The Blind Eye, U.S. Non-Proliferation Policy Towards Pakistan From Ford to Clinton

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About