Suchergebnisse

The past decade has witnessed burgeoning efforts amongst governments to prevent people from developing a commitment to violent extremism (conceived of as a process of radicalization). These interventions acknowledge the importance of group processes yet in practice primarily focus on the idiosyncratic personal vulnerabilities that lead people to engage in violence. This conceptualization is problematic because it disconnects the individual from the group and fails to adequately address the role of group processes in radicalization. As an alternative, we advance a genuinely social psychological account of radicalization. We draw on recent developments in theory and research in psychological science to suggest that radicalization is fundamentally a group socialization process through which people develop identification with a set of norms – that may be violent or non-violent – through situated social interactions that leverage their shared perceptions and experiences. Our alternative provides a way of understanding shifts towards violent extremism that are caused by both the content (focal topics) and process of social interactions. This means that people's radicalization to violence is inseparable from the social context in which their social interactions take place.

There are several psychological analyses of the processes of radicalization resulting in terrorism. However, we know little about how those in authority (e.g., the police) conceptualize the psychological dynamics to radicalization. Accordingly, we present a detailed account of an official U.K. counterterrorism intervention, the Workshop to Raise Awareness of Prevent, designed to enlist frontline professionals in identifying and referring those at risk of radicalization. Specifically, we report data gathered during an observation of this intervention delivered by the police in Scotland. This provides insight into the psychological model of radicalization being disseminated in the United Kingdom, and we evaluate the merits of this model in the light of current psychological theory. First, we consider how this model may overlook certain social dynamics relevant to understanding radicalization. Second, we discuss how this neglect limits consideration of how the surveillance warranted by the official model may lead Muslims to disengage from majority group members. Our analysis points to how political psychology's analysis of social identities and citizenship can inform public policy and practice.

There are several psychological analyses of the processes of radicalisation resulting in terrorism. However, we know little about how those in authority (e.g., the police) conceptualise the psychological dynamics to radicalisation. Accordingly, we present a detailed account of an official UK counter-terrorism intervention, the Workshop to Raise Awareness of Prevent, designed to enlist front-line professionals in identifying and referring those at risk of radicalisation. Specifically, we report data gathered during an observation of this intervention delivered by the police in Scotland. This provides insight into the psychological model of radicalisation being disseminated in the UK and we evaluate the merits of this model in the light of current psychological theory. First, we consider how this model may overlook certain social dynamics relevant to understanding radicalisation. Second, we discuss how this neglect limits consideration of how the surveillance warranted by the official model may lead Muslims to disengage from majority group members. Our analysis points to how political psychology's analysis of social identities and citizenship can inform public policy and practice.

There are several psychological analyses of the processes of radicalization resulting in terrorism. However, we know little about how those in authority (e.g., the police) conceptualize the psychological dynamics to radicalization. Accordingly, we present a detailed account of an official U.K. counterterrorism intervention, the Workshop to Raise Awareness of Prevent, designed to enlist frontline professionals in identifying and referring those at risk of radicalization. Specifically, we report data gathered during an observation of this intervention delivered by the police in Scotland. This provides insight into the psychological model of radicalization being disseminated in the United Kingdom, and we evaluate the merits of this model in the light of current psychological theory. First, we consider how this model may overlook certain social dynamics relevant to understanding radicalization. Second, we discuss how this neglect limits consideration of how the surveillance warranted by the official model may lead Muslims to disengage from majority group members. Our analysis points to how political psychology's analysis of social identities and citizenship can inform public policy and practice.

What leads to the alienation and political (dis)engagement of minority groups is a critical question for political psychologists. Recently, research has focused attention on one particular minority group – Muslims in the West – and on what promotes "anti-Western" attitudes and behavior. Typically, the research focus is on factors internal to the individuals or the minority communities concerned. However, we argue this overlooks the ways in which the perspective and practices of the majority group affect minority group members' understandings of who they are and how they stand in relation to the majority. In this paper we examine the social-psychological processes through which authorities' surveillance and intervention affects minority group members' sense of themselves, their relationship to authorities and the wider community. In doing so, we discuss a number of hitherto neglected psychological processes that may contribute to alienation-namely, processes of misrecognition, disrespect, and humiliation. We draw on research conducted with British Muslims to illustrate our argument for widening our analytic focus to give a more dynamic account of alienation and (dis)engagement.

What leads to the alienation and political (dis)engagement of minority groups is a critical question for political psychologists. Recently, research has focused attention on one particular minority group – Muslims in the West – and on what promotes "anti-Western" attitudes and behavior. Typically, the research focus is on factors internal to the individuals or the minority communities concerned. However, we argue this overlooks the ways in which the perspective and practices of the majority group affect minority group members' understandings of who they are and how they stand in relation to the majority. In this paper we examine the social-psychological processes through which authorities' surveillance and intervention affects minority group members' sense of themselves, their relationship to authorities and the wider community. In doing so, we discuss a number of hitherto neglected psychological processes that may contribute to alienation-namely, processes of misrecognition, disrespect, and humiliation. We draw on research conducted with British Muslims to illustrate our argument for widening our analytic focus to give a more dynamic account of alienation and (dis)engagement.

The present article reports a longitudinal study of the psychological antecedents for, and outcomes of, collective action for a community sample of activists. At Time 1, activist identification influenced intentions to engage in collective action behaviours protesting the Iraq war, both directly and indirectly via perceptions of the efficacy of these behaviours for achieving group goals, as well as perceptions of individual‐level benefits. At Time 2, identification was associated with differences in the dimensions on which the movement's success was evaluated. In the context of the movement's failure to achieve its stated objectives of troop withdrawal, those with strong activist identity placed less importance on influencing government decision making. The implications are discussed in terms of models of collective action and social identity, focusing on a dynamic model that relates identification with a group to evaluations of instrumentality at a group and individual level; and to beliefs about strategic responses to achieve group goals.

We examined how rhetorical style affects evaluations of group advocates, and how these evaluations are moderated by group identification. University students were given a letter to the editor defending student welfare. The argument was either constructed using personal language ('I believe') or collective language ('we believe'). Furthermore, the letter was either attributed to an official advocate (president of the student union) or an unofficial advocate (a rank-and-file member of the student body). Consistent with the social identity perspective, participants who showed strong identification as a university student thought that the group would feel better represented by official advocates using collective rather than personal language. Low identifiers, however, did not rate the rhetorical styles differently on representativeness. Furthermore, low identifiers (but not high identifiers) rated official advocates as more likable and more effective when they used personal rather than collective language. The discussion focuses on the conflict low identifiers might feel between (a) needing to homogenize with other group members in order to maximize the influence and political effectiveness of their message at the collective level, and (b) protecting themselves against categorization threat.

International audience ; We examined how rhetorical style affects evaluations of group advocates, and how these evaluations are moderated by group identification. University students were given a letter to the editor defending student welfare. The argument was either constructed using personal language ('I believe') or collective language ('we believe'). Furthermore, the letter was either attributed to an official advocate (president of the student union) or an unofficial advocate (a rank-and-file member of the student body). Consistent with the social identity perspective, participants who showed strong identification as a university student thought that the group would feel better represented by official advocates using collective rather than personal language. Low identifiers, however, did not rate the rhetorical styles differently on representativeness. Furthermore, low identifiers (but not high identifiers) rated official advocates as more likable and more effective when they used personal rather than collective language. The discussion focuses on the conflict low identifiers might feel between (a) needing to homogenize with other group members in order to maximize the influence and political effectiveness of their message at the collective level, and (b) protecting themselves against categorization threat.

We examined how rhetorical style affects evaluations of group advocates, and how these evaluations are moderated by group identification. University students were given a letter to the editor defending student welfare. The argument was either constructed using personal language ('I believe') or collective language ('we believe'). Furthermore, the letter was either attributed to an official advocate (president of the student union) or an unofficial advocate (a rank-and-file member of the student body). Consistent with the social identity perspective, participants who showed strong identification as a university student thought that the group would feel better represented by official advocates using collective rather than personal language. Low identifiers, however, did not rate the rhetorical styles differently on representativeness. Furthermore, low identifiers (but not high identifiers) rated official advocates as more likable and more effective when they used personal rather than collective language. The discussion focuses on the conflict low identifiers might feel between (a) needing to homogenize with other group members in order to maximize the influence and political effectiveness of their message at the collective level, and (b) protecting themselves against categorization threat.