Psychosocial Prevention Programs against Radicalization and Extremism: A Meta-Analysis of Outcome Evaluations

IF 7.6 1区 社会学 Q1 LAW
Irina Jugl, F. Lösel, D. Bender, Sonja King
{"title":"Psychosocial Prevention Programs against Radicalization and Extremism: A Meta-Analysis of Outcome Evaluations","authors":"Irina Jugl, F. Lösel, D. Bender, Sonja King","doi":"10.5093/ejpalc2021a6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Politically, religiously, and otherwise motivated radicalization and violent extremism is a topic of high priority in many countries. Therefore, beyond intelligence and police measures, there is a strong increase of psychosocial prevention programs in this field. However, little is known about their effectiveness. We aimed to fill this research gap by conducting a systematic international review and meta-analysis of outcome evaluations. We screened about 14,000 reports on the topic of extremism prevention, but in spite of broad criteria of eligibility, we only found nine more or less well-controlled outcome evaluations from seven countries. Six programs addressed religious/ethnic extremism, one targeted nationalist/separatist extremism, and one different types of extremism. Most evaluations had a quasi-experimental pre-post design, only one contained a randomized controlled trial (RCT). Overall, programs had a significant mean positive effect on behavioral and psychosocial outcomes related to extremism (d = 0.50, SE = 0.12). Regarding the specific effects of the programs on psychosocial aspects such as for example extremist attitudes alone, we found similar results (d = 0.56, SE = 0.11). We found stronger effects for programs with target groups from mixed ethnic backgrounds and approaches addressing both at-risk individuals and participants from the general population. Despite these promising results, the low internal validity of most evaluations and small number of eligible studies limit generalization. More high-quality evaluations are clearly needed. These would help to allocate resources in an evidence-oriented manner and provide a better understanding of the mechanisms of successfully preventing radicalization and violent extremism.","PeriodicalId":46030,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Psychology Applied To Legal Context","volume":"13 1","pages":"37-46"},"PeriodicalIF":7.6000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"19","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Psychology Applied To Legal Context","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5093/ejpalc2021a6","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 19

Abstract

Politically, religiously, and otherwise motivated radicalization and violent extremism is a topic of high priority in many countries. Therefore, beyond intelligence and police measures, there is a strong increase of psychosocial prevention programs in this field. However, little is known about their effectiveness. We aimed to fill this research gap by conducting a systematic international review and meta-analysis of outcome evaluations. We screened about 14,000 reports on the topic of extremism prevention, but in spite of broad criteria of eligibility, we only found nine more or less well-controlled outcome evaluations from seven countries. Six programs addressed religious/ethnic extremism, one targeted nationalist/separatist extremism, and one different types of extremism. Most evaluations had a quasi-experimental pre-post design, only one contained a randomized controlled trial (RCT). Overall, programs had a significant mean positive effect on behavioral and psychosocial outcomes related to extremism (d = 0.50, SE = 0.12). Regarding the specific effects of the programs on psychosocial aspects such as for example extremist attitudes alone, we found similar results (d = 0.56, SE = 0.11). We found stronger effects for programs with target groups from mixed ethnic backgrounds and approaches addressing both at-risk individuals and participants from the general population. Despite these promising results, the low internal validity of most evaluations and small number of eligible studies limit generalization. More high-quality evaluations are clearly needed. These would help to allocate resources in an evidence-oriented manner and provide a better understanding of the mechanisms of successfully preventing radicalization and violent extremism.
针对激进和极端主义的心理社会预防计划:结果评估的元分析
在许多国家,出于政治、宗教和其他动机的激进化和暴力极端主义是一个高度优先的话题。因此,除了情报和警察措施之外,这一领域的心理社会预防计划也在大力增加。然而,人们对它们的有效性知之甚少。我们旨在通过对结果评估进行系统的国际综述和荟萃分析来填补这一研究空白。我们筛选了大约14000份关于预防极端主义主题的报告,但尽管有广泛的资格标准,我们只发现来自七个国家的九份或多或少控制良好的结果评估。六个项目涉及宗教/种族极端主义,一个针对民族主义/分离主义极端主义,以及一种不同类型的极端主义。大多数评估都是准实验性的前后设计,只有一项包含随机对照试验(RCT)。总体而言,项目对与极端主义相关的行为和心理社会结果具有显著的平均积极影响(d=0.50,SE=0.12)。关于项目对心理社会方面的具体影响,例如仅极端主义态度,我们发现了类似的结果(d=0.56,SE=0.11)。我们发现,针对来自混合种族背景的目标群体的项目和针对高危人群和普通人群参与者的方法效果更强。尽管有这些有希望的结果,但大多数评估的内部有效性较低,合格研究数量较少,限制了概括。显然需要进行更高质量的评价。这将有助于以注重证据的方式分配资源,并更好地了解成功防止激进化和暴力极端主义的机制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
14.60
自引率
9.50%
发文量
10
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, the official journal of the Sociedad Española de Psicología Jurídica y Forense [Spanish Society of Forensic Psychology] and the Asociación Iberoamericana de Justicia Terapéutica [Latin-American Association of Therapeutic Jurisprudence], publishes empirical articles and meta-analytic reviews of topics dealing with psychology and law (e.g., legal decision making, eyewitness). The journal is aimed at researchers, academics and professionals in Psychology, Law, Social Work, Forensic Sciences, Educators and, in general, people related with Social Sciences and the Law.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信