Figure - available from: Campbell Systematic Reviews
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Source publication
Objectives
This systematic review seeks to collate and synthesize putative risk and protective factors for the different outcomes of radicalization.
Methodology
Drawing on an established theoretical framework, we will categorize putative risk and protective factors as they relate to the domains of radical attitudes, intentions, and behaviors. We w...
Similar publications
Recent systematic reviews point out the positive acute effects of physical activity on executive functions in children and adolescents, but the chronic effects in this age group are still uncertain. This study aims to describe a systematic review with meta-analysis protocol to elucidate the chronic effects of physical activity at school on the exec...
Citations
... Researchon violent extremist women is necessary because of their increased (active) involvement in terrorist activities (Von Knop, 2007). Gaining more insight into women at risk can contribute to the prevention of future violent extremism by women (Wolfowicz et al., 2020a(Wolfowicz et al., , 2020b. ...
... Studies on violent extremism and terrorism increasingly focus on improving risk assessment and understanding risk and protective factors, which may lead to substantiated deradicalization strategies (Wolfowicz et al., 2020a(Wolfowicz et al., , 2020b. Despite the growth of terrorism research, empirical studies represent only a small percentage of the existing knowledge (Schuurman, 2018;Silke, 2008), leading policymakers to develop deradicalization strategies which effectiveness is hardly known (Davis, 2014;Neumann & Kleinmann, 2013). ...
... In this study, we emphasize women's radicalization processes, since they also have a role in terrorist activities [6]. Attention to both male and female radicalization is necessary to contribute to the prevention of future violent extremism [7,8]. There is evidence that the radicalization process occurs differently for women and therefore may require different prevention and intervention strategies than for men [9]. ...
... It is noteworthy that a majority of existing research on violent extremism has focused on male samples [5]. Getting more insight into discrepancies in the radicalization processes between men and women can contribute to the development of gender-specific deradicalization interventions and policies to adequately respond to radicalization [52] and to prevent future violent extremism by women [7,8]. In this study, we adopted a person-centered perspective and assumed that trigger factors at the individual level can increase susceptibility to alternative worldviews and, in the case of radicalization and extreme ideologies, thereby initiate a process toward violent extremism [34]. ...
... These studies were chosen for their exploration of relevant factors in radicalization processes, encompassing changes in cognitive constructs and accompanying shifts in behavioral patterns. Furthermore, these identified factors align with research on transition points in radicalization processes (e.g., [7,54]). The data collection format was discussed by the first and fourth authors and specified after discussion. ...
Background:
Radicalization, violent extremism, and terrorism are risks to societal security. Although research on terrorism-related behaviors is increasing, thorough empirical studies are rare.
Methods:
This study investigates radicalization processes and transitions in a matched sample of female and male terrorist suspects and convicts (N = 26) residing in Dutch penitentiary terrorism wings.
Results:
Results show that both men and women often experienced discrimination. A subgroup of women grew up in a stressful family environment and lacked emotional support from their family, whereas the other women did not experience such circumstances. The majority of the study sample was susceptible to connecting with radicalized friends or family members. Interestingly, factors that initially led to radicalization (e.g., a utopian image of the Islamic State) could later turn out to be factors associated with abandoning extremism.
Conclusions:
In this study, differences in radicalization processes and transitional phases between women and men emerged. Men more often had police contact prior to a terrorism-related offense. Making an effort to right old mistakes seemed important in the radicalization processes of men, whereas women had a stronger desire for emotional support and were more driven by experienced trauma and feelings of loneliness. This study provides input for gender-specific prevention and disengagement interventions.
... Psychological factors: criminal thinking, anti-social personality, externalizing, internalizing, major mental illness, substance use Wolfowicz et al., 2020). Examples may include results from risk/needs assessments, clinician-administered mental health assessments, or substance abuse screening results. ...
... Outcomes are expected to be both dichotomous and continuous and are anticipated to come from self-report questionnaires, official/government outcomes, self-report/unofficial offending, and family reports. Different types of effect sizes will be statistically converted to correlations and pooled where possible (Wolfowicz et al., 2020) 2 . We will ensure the direction of scores on combined scales have the same meaning/directionality and will report when scales are reversed. ...
... If we are required to convert an odds ratio to a correlation coefficient (due to the absence of requisite information) we will adopt Borenstein et al.'s (2009) approach (e.g., log odds ratio to Cohen's d to r). In sum, different types of effect sizes will be statistically converted to correlations and pooled where possible (Wolfowicz et al., 2020). We will analyze raw covariates and covariate-adjusted estimates separately. ...
This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objective of this review is to synthesize the evidence to identify risk and strength factors that predict the criminal offending in underrepresented genders and sexual minorities.
... Thus, family could be key to understanding and preventing radicalization, but more research is needed to confirm this. A Campbell Collaboration systematic review focused on putative risk and protective factors for cognitive and behavioral radicalization (Wolfowicz et al., 2020(Wolfowicz et al., , 2021. Some results regarding putative factors for radicalization were also published by Wolfowicz et al. (2019). ...
Background
Family‐related risk and protective factors are crucial for different antisocial behaviors, but their role in radicalization requires synthesis. Radicalization is likely to have a negative impact on families, and well‐designed and implemented family‐focused intervention programs have the potential to decrease radicalization.
Objectives
Research questions were: (1) What are the family‐related risk and protective factors for radicalization? (2) What is the impact of radicalization on families? (3) Are family‐based interventions against radicalization effective?
Search Methods
Searches included 25 databases and hand searches of gray literature from April to July 2021. Leading researchers in the field were asked to provide published and unpublished studies on the topic. Reference lists of the included studies and previously published systematic reviews on risk and protective factors for radicalization were scanned.
Selection Criteria
Published and unpublished quantitative studies on family‐related risk and protective factors for radicalization, the impact of radicalization on families, and family‐focused interventions were eligible with no restrictions regarding the study year, location, or any demographic characteristic. Studies were included if they measured the relation between a family‐related factor and radicalization or if they included a family‐focused intervention against radicalization. For family‐related risk and protective factors, radicalized individuals needed to be compared to general population. Studies were included if they defined radicalization as support or commission of violence to defend a cause, including support for radical groups.
Data Collection and Analysis
The systematic search identified 86,591 studies. After screening, 33 studies focused on family‐related risk and protective factors were included, with 89 primary effect sizes and 48 variables grouped in 14 factors. For the factors that included two or more studies, meta‐analyses with random effects were conducted. When possible, moderator analyses were performed together with sensitivity and publication bias analyses. No studies on the impact of radicalization on families or family‐focused interventions were included.
Results
The current systematic review based on studies with 148,081 adults and adolescents from diverse geographic locations showed that parental ethnic socialization (z = 0.27), having extremist family members (z = 0.26), and family conflict (z = 0.11) were related to more radicalization, whereas high family socioeconomic status (z = −0.03), bigger family size (z = −0.05), and high family commitment (z = −0.06) were related to less radicalization. Separate analyses described family‐factors for behavioral versus cognitive radicalization, and different radical ideologies including Islamist, right‐wing and left‐wing. It was not possible to distinguish risk and protective factors from correlates and the level of overall bias was mostly high. No results regarding the impact of radicalization on families or family‐focused interventions were included.
Authors' Conclusions
Although causal relations between family‐related risk and protective factors could not be established, it is reasonable to suggest that policies and practice should aim at decreasing family‐related risks and increasing protective factors for radicalization. Tailored interventions including these factors should be urgently designed, implemented and evaluated. Studies focused on the impact of radicalization on families and family‐focused interventions are urgently needed together with longitudinal studies on family‐related risk and protective factors.
... Although an important amount of literature has been published on the phenomenon of terrorism and its origins (for example, Rapoport, 2002;Jenkins, 1978;Laqueur, 1987;Schmid and Jongman, 1988;Poland, 2004;Matusitz, 2013;Woo-suk, 2020;Phillips, 2021) and on European (Tröger, 1988;Reinares, 2001;Iribarren and Florencio, 2003), Latin American (Burt, 2006;Esparza, Huttenbach, & Feierstein, 2010) or Middle Eastern terrorist groups (Shahid and Seltzer, 1988;Said, 2014), there is not much research on public justification of terrorism (Schatz, Staub & Lavine,1999;Held, 2004, Byman, 2005, Schmid, 2004, Hegre, 2014, Kruglanski et al., 2014Connor et al., 2015;Sageman, 2004, Sageman, 2017Vergani et al., 2020;Wolfowicz, Litmanovitz, Weisburd, & Hasisi, 2020). To begin with, Sageman points out that the term justification is twofold. ...
In this article we present the factors (pull, push and personal) that allow people to justify terrorism. We build a model that allows us to predict on a global scale, which factors best discriminate between the people who justify - or do not justify - terrorism. Based on data from the seventh wave of the World Values Survey (2017-2020) we compare those who do not justify terrorism with those who justify terrorism (23.7% of those interviewed, N= 69578). The importance of attitudes about democracy turns out to be the variable that predicts cognitive radicalization best.
... 1. Terrorism is one of the most serious challenges facing the world today, with a number of countries having recently experienced an increase in terrorism (Wolfowicz, Litmanovitz, Weisburd & Hasisi, 2020). Terrorism has also proved difficult to define and as such, there is no international agreement regarding a universal meaning of 'terrorism' (Pressman & Flockton, 2012). ...
... 121. Researchers have strived to identify the characteristics of individuals engaging in terrorism offences and understand the risk factors related to terrorism, however radicalisation has become more of a focus in recent years (Wolfowicz et al., 2020). Radicalisation has been referred to as one of the most important sub-fields of terrorism research (Neumann & Kleinmann, 2013). ...
... Radicalisation has been referred to as one of the most important sub-fields of terrorism research (Neumann & Kleinmann, 2013). There are several challenges that have affected the development of the radicalisation evidence base including uncertainty on how best to measure radicalisation, a lack of systematic analysis of the evidence base, which at times has been contradictory, and lastly, little is known about the relative weight or clustering of risk and protective factors (Wolfowicz et al., 2020). The studies discussed here aimed to identify risk and protective factors related to radicalisation. ...
... The review's primary objectives were to investigate what the risk and protective factors for radicalization are, and to identify the relative magnitude of their relationships with radicalization outcomes. Given the diversity of the literature, especially with respect to definitions of radicalization, the review pre-determined its inclusion and exclusion criteria in a systematic review protocol (Wolfowicz, Litmanovitz, Weisburd and Hasisi, 2020). These criteria are summarized in the following sections. ...
In this study we sought to identify whether risk and protective factors for radicalization can be classed as ‘universal’ factors or whether they have heterogeneous cross-regional effects. Specifically, we sought to identify whether there were factors which displayed significantly different effects in European contexts compared to other democratic countries. We conduct a confirmatory meta-analysis based on a recent Campbell Collaboration systematic review and meta-analysis (Wolfowicz, Litmanovitz, Weisburd and Hasisi, 2021). Studies were classified as being from either EU or non-EU countries and moderator analysis was used to identify between-region heterogeneity. The analysis was possible for 23 factors pertaining to radical attitudes, 13 pertaining to radical intentions and 4 for radical behaviours. For radical attitudes, the estimates for European studies were significantly larger for Gender, Socio-economic status, and Parental involvement, whereas the estimates for Religiosity, Institutional trust, Integration, and Moral neutralizations were significantly smaller compared to other democratic countries in other regions. For radical intentions, the estimates for Self-esteem was significantly larger for European studies. For radical behaviours, the estimate for Unemployment was significantly larger for European studies than for democratic countries in other regions. Overall, most risk and protective factors for radicalization appear to have ‘universal’ effects across democratic countries, but there are some factors that may be more relevant for targeting by counter-radicalization in certain contexts. Although European counter-radicalization has often focused on factors such as integration and institutional trust, these factors have relatively small relationships with radicalization, and these relationships are even smaller in the European context compared to democratic countries in other regions. The findings suggest that mitigation strategies, and interventions providing employment opportunities in particular, may be well suited to the European context if the goal is to develop locally-oriented approaches to counter-radicalization.
... Systematic reviews of the multidisciplinary literature on our topic comprise thousands of documents (e.g., Lösel et al, 2020;Wolfowicz et al., 2020). It is impossible to represent this huge amount of scientific contributions adequately in the few papers of this thematic issue, For a comprehensive overview we still suggest the handbook of La-Free and Freilich (2017), although there is now more recent research. ...
... A Campbell Collaboration registered protocol focused on putative risk and protective factors for cognitive and behavioral radicalization (Wolfowicz et al., 2020). Some results regarding putative factors for radicalization were recently published by Wolfowicz et al. (2019). ...
This systematic review aims to answer the following research questions: (1) What are the family‐related risk and protective factors for radicalization? (2) What is the impact of radicalization on families? (3) To what extent are family‐based interventions against radicalization effective? The review will answer these research questions by systematically gathering and synthesizing published and unpublished scientific literature on family‐related risk and protective factors for radicalization, the impact of radicalization on family, and studies that evaluate the impact of family‐based interventions on radicalization. This review will also explore what components of family‐based interventions are most effective for countering radicalization. Thus, this systematic review will provide a global vision of scientific literature focused on family and radicalization including quantitative research.
Articolul analizează principalii indicatori la nivel cognitiv și comportamental care pot fi observați ca urmare a manifestării procesului de radicalizare islamică, respectiv stadiul avansat de radicalizare. De asemenea, sfera de cercetare se raportează la identificarea semnalelor la radicalizare islamică, prin utilizarea unei metodologii bazate pe analiza cazurilor de radicalizare a cetățenilor români. Cum cercetarea vizează analiza principalelor semnale care trădează stadiul avansat de radicalizare individuală, acești indicatori prezintă utilitate pentru avertizarea timpurie atât din perspectiva practicienilor și autorităților competente în prevenirea și combaterea radicalizării, cât și pentru societatea civilă, în vederea creșterii gradului de conștientizare cu privire la identificarea discursului radical întâlnit în mediul online.
