Might Depression, Psychosocial Adversity, and Limited Social Assets Explain Vulnerability to and Resistance against Violent Radicalisation?

Abstract

BackgroundThis study tests whether depression, psychosocial adversity, and limited social assets offer protection or suggest vulnerability to the process of radicalisation.MethodsA population sample of 608 men and women of Pakistani or Bangladeshi origin, of Muslim heritage, and aged 18–45 were recruited by quota sampling. Radicalisation was measured by 16 questions asking about sympathies for violent protest and terrorism. Cluster analysis of the 16 items generated three groups: most sympathetic (or most vulnerable), most condemning (most resistant), and a large intermediary group that acted as a reference group. Associations were calculated with depression (PHQ9), anxiety (GAD7), poor health, and psychosocial adversity (adverse life events, perceived discrimination, unemployment). We also investigated protective factors such as the number social contacts, social capital (trust, satisfaction, feeling safe), political engagement and religiosity.ResultsThose showing the most sympathy for violent protest and terrorism were more likely to report depression (PHQ9 score of 5 or more; RR = 5.43, 1.35 to 21.84) and to report religion to be important (less often said religion was fairly rather than very important; RR = 0.08, 0.01 to 0.48). Resistance to radicalisation measured by condemnation of violent protest and terrorism was associated with larger number of social contacts (per contact: RR = 1.52, 1.26 to 1.83), less social capital (RR = 0.63, 0.50 to 0.80), unavailability for work due to housekeeping or disability (RR = 8.81, 1.06 to 37.46), and not being born in the UK (RR = 0.22, 0.08 to 0.65).ConclusionsVulnerability to radicalisation is characterised by depression but resistance to radicalisation shows a different profile of health and psychosocial variables. The paradoxical role of social capital warrants further investigation.

Whither Criminology: Its Global Futures?

“…Much has been made of Anders Breivik that fits well with this kind of understanding (see inter alia Billig and Stalne 2012). In a similar vein, Bhui et al (2014) report a link between mild depression, expressed support for violence and tendencies towards radicalisation/violent extremism. The extent to which this kind of approach fits with the available evidence pertaining to violent extremism motivated by religion is moot since suicide attacks prevent subsequent psychological analysis.…”

Fractured Lives, Splintered Knowledge: Making Criminological Sense of the January, 2015 Terrorist Attacks in Paris

“…Gruenewald et al (2013) have pointed to the significance of mental instability/illness, military background, age, and relationship status as distinguishing 'loners' from other kinds of extremists: a product of what they call 'self-radicalisation'. In a similar vein, Bhui et al (2014) report a link between mild depression and expressed support for violence and tendencies towards radicalisation. However, as Pape (2006) argues, it is important to remember that the vast majority of suicide bombers also belong to, or are affiliated with, organizations making the attribution of psychological factors alone difficult.…”

The 2016 ‘Lone Wolf’ Tsunami - Is Rapoport’s ‘Religious Wave’ Ending?

“…54 Bhui et al see a spiral at play here. 55 Their groundbreaking study into depression and sympathy for violent protest and terrorism showed a direct correlation between weakened social cohesion, depression, and support for extreme views. It also identified a self-perpetuating pattern, with increased violence and terrorist acts leading to increased breakdown of social capital, depression, and higher sympathy for extreme acts.…”