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

Abstract

Galway, under the supervision of Dr Kiran Sarma. Sarah Carthy will coordinate and conduct the review. Colm Doody will act as second coder for the study selection process. Dr O'Hora and Dr Sarma will supervise the review.

Online interventions for reducing hate speech and cyberhate: A systematic review

“…No specific intervention toward aggressors was found, and most projects focused on prevention or on victims, through confidence and skills building such as learning to speak out, report, and potentially react in an appropriate way. We support the recommendations offered by Carthy et al (2018) and Blaya (2019) that additional research is needed in this area to properly interpret the effectiveness of online interventions aimed at reducing online hate speech and cyberhate.…”

“…Two reviews offer additional insight into the current state of online hate speech and cyberhate interventions. First, Carthy et al (2018) assessed the effectiveness of counter‐narratives in reducing the risk of violent radicalization. While the authors found little evidence that counter‐narratives are effective at targeting the intent to act violently, they concluded that these counter‐narrative interventions might affect some risk factors (e.g., realistic threat, in‐group favoritism, out‐group hostility) related to violent radicalization.…”

“…We encourage research into truly innovative approaches to addressing this problem that are radically distinct from existing programs. Third, echoing the recommendation put forth by Carthy et al (2018), we encourage researchers to clearly specify the theoretical frameworks that guided their online intervention and/or campaign. While social norming (Elster, 1989; also see Bicchieri, 2005) emerged as a common theoretical perspective among the eligible studies, there are other useful theoretical frameworks (e.g., social identity theory, terror management theory, subjective uncertainty reduction theory) that warrant thoughtful consideration and testing.…”

“…These potential variables could have been important independent variables to examine the magnitude of effect sizes. We point to the Blaya (2019) and Carthy et al (2018) reviews, which examined a large amount of qualitative research and provide additional context to this meta-analysis. There is also a need for more empirical studies of online interventions that focus their outcomes specifically on online behavior.…”

“…Our review focuses specifically on any online intervention, which may or may not involve the police, but police will not be the focus nor the basis of the online intervention strategy. Judging from Carthy et al's (2018) protocol, our review also captured counter‐narrative interventions but differed based on setting, timing, and scope of interventions. Specifically, we were interested in online interventions that extend beyond counter‐messaging campaigns to include a broad array of interventions outlined above and extend beyond radicalization to include everyday hate and prejudice.…”