What are the effects of different elements of media on radicalization outcomes? A systematic review

Abstract

Background Most national counter‐radicalization strategies identify the media, and particularly the Internet as key sources of risk for radicalization. However, the magnitude of the relationships between different types of media usage and radicalization remains unknown. Additionally, whether Internet‐related risk factors do indeed have greater impacts than other forms of media remain another unknown. Overall, despite extensive research of media effects in criminology, the relationship between media and radicalization has not been systematically investigated. Objectives This systematic review and meta‐analysis sought to (1) identify and synthesize the effects of different media‐related risk factors at the individual level, (2) identify the relative magnitudes of the effect sizes for the different risk factors, and (3) compare the effects between outcomes of cognitive and behavioral radicalization. The review also sought to examine sources of heterogeneity between different radicalizing ideologies. Search Methods Electronic searches were carried out in several relevant databases and inclusion decisions were guided by a published review protocol. In addition to these searches, leading researchers were contacted to try and identify unpublished or unidentified research. Hand searches of previously published reviews and research were also used to supplement the database searches. Searches were carried out until August 2020. Selection Criteria The review included quantitative studies that examined at least one media‐related risk factor (such as exposure to, or usage of a particular medium or mediated content) and its relationship to either cognitive or behavioral radicalization at the individual level. Data Collection and Analysis Random‐effects meta‐analysis was used for each risk factor individually and risk factors were arranged in rank‐order. Heterogeneity was explored using a combination of moderator analysis, meta‐regression, and sub‐group analysis. Results The review included 4 experimental and 49 observational studies. Most of the studies were judged to be of low quality and suffer from multiple, potential sources of bias. From the included studies, effect sizes pertaining to 23 media‐related risk factors were identified and analyzed for the outcome of cognitive radicalization, and two risk factors for the outcome of behavioral radicalization. Experimental evidence demonstrated that mere exposure to media theorized to increase cognitive radicalization was associated with a small increase in risk (g = 0.08, 95% confidence interval [CI] [−0.03, 19]). A slightly larger estimate was observed for those high in trait aggression (g = 0.13, 95% CI [0.01, 0.25]). Evidence from observational studies shows that for cognitive radicalization, risk factors such as television usage have no effect (r = 0.01, 95% CI [−0.06, 0.09]). However, passive (r = 0.24, 95% CI [0.18, 0.31]) and active (r = 0.22, 95% CI [0.15, 0.29]) forms of exposure to radical content online demonstrate small but potentially meaningful relationsh...

Social alienation as a bridge between unemployment and support for political violence.

“…Providing some more clarity, Wolfowicz et al (2021) conducted a meta-analysis where they found that unemployment was a putative risk factor for developing radical attitudes. Although the authors found that unemployment had a small impact, another review suggested that it is related to other factors that have a stronger relationship with radicalization, such as social exclusion (Wolfowicz et al, 2022). In addition, employment has also been a common strategy in prevention and deradicalization/disengagement programs (Lobato & García-Coll, 2022; Wolfowicz et al, 2022).…”

Significance Quest: A Meta-Analysis on the Association Between the Variables of the 3N Model and Violent Extremism

“…Although various meta-analyses focusing on risk factors for radicalization and violent extremism have been released in the last few years (e.g., Wolfowicz et al, 2020Wolfowicz et al, , 2021Wolfowicz et al, , 2022Zych & Nasaescu, 2022), the purpose of the present meta-analysis is to put into test the SQT and its 3N model by systematically retrieving all relevant quantitative (un)published studies, based on primary data, mobilizing the SQT framework and its 3N model. Precisely, it aims to examine the strength of the association between need, narrative, network, and violent extremism.…”

“…In the present research, however, we chose to focus on the latter as the outcome of interest, whereas the former is considered as an independent variable (referring to the narrative component of the 3N model) because the SQT and its 3N model aim to explain violent behavior . Also, we employ the term violent extremism, instead of behavioral outcome of radicalization, because this is the term employed by the proponents of the SQT (Kruglanski et al, 2009, 2022).…”

Terrorism and the internet: How dangerous is online radicalization?

“…Having identified a set of 11 empirical studies, using a range of methods and focusing on several extremist ideologies, the review concludes that there is tentative evidence that exposure leads to radicalization, although it is not clear which level of involvement is needed on the user’s side to become more radicalized. Similarly, Wolfowicz et al (2022) reviewed and integrated experimental and observational evidence in a comprehensive meta-analysis. Based on four experimental studies, the authors obtained a small effect for mere exposure to media content, i.e., with passive study participants, on radicalization outcomes (Hedges’ g = 0.08), which was slightly increased in case of high trait aggression ( g = 0.13).…”

“…Next, to the question of how much activity or engagement is necessary online to support radicalization, other work has focused on the type of format and content that is most effective. Wolfowicz et al (2022) , in their meta-analysis, attempted to separate online exposure from other forms of media consumption. Pooling outcomes from 49 observational studies, they conclude that TV consumption carries no effect while active and passive online exposure to radical content are related to risk of radicalization ( r = 0.22 for active, and r = 0.24 for passive online consumption).…”