Does context matter? European-specific risk factors for radicalization

IF 0.6 4区 社会学 Q4 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY
Michael Wolfowicz, D. Weisburd, B. Hasisi
{"title":"Does context matter? European-specific risk factors for radicalization","authors":"Michael Wolfowicz, D. Weisburd, B. Hasisi","doi":"10.1515/mks-2021-0132","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract 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.","PeriodicalId":43577,"journal":{"name":"Monatsschrift Fur Kriminologie Und Strafrechtsreform","volume":"130 1","pages":"217 - 230"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Monatsschrift Fur Kriminologie Und Strafrechtsreform","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/mks-2021-0132","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Abstract 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.
语境重要吗?欧洲特有的激进化风险因素
在这项研究中,我们试图确定激进化的风险和保护因素是否可以归类为“普遍”因素,或者它们是否具有异质的跨区域影响。具体来说,我们试图确定是否有因素在欧洲背景下与其他民主国家相比表现出显著不同的影响。我们根据Campbell Collaboration最近的一项系统综述和荟萃分析(Wolfowicz, Litmanovitz, Weisburd and Hasisi, 2021)进行了验证性荟萃分析。研究被分类为来自欧盟或非欧盟国家,并使用调节分析来确定区域间的异质性。可以分析23个与激进态度有关的因素,13个与激进意图有关,4个与激进行为有关。对于激进态度,欧洲研究在性别、社会经济地位和父母参与方面的估计要大得多,而在宗教信仰、制度信任、整合和道德中立方面的估计要比其他地区的其他民主国家小得多。对于激进的意图,欧洲研究对自尊的估计要大得多。对于激进行为,欧洲研究对失业率的估计明显大于其他地区民主国家的估计。总体而言,激进化的大多数风险和保护因素似乎在民主国家具有“普遍”影响,但在某些情况下,反激进化的目标可能与一些因素更为相关。尽管欧洲反激进化往往关注一体化和制度信任等因素,但这些因素与激进化的关系相对较小,与其他地区的民主国家相比,这些关系在欧洲背景下甚至更小。研究结果表明,如果目标是制定面向当地的反激进化办法,缓解战略,特别是提供就业机会的干预措施,可能非常适合欧洲的情况。
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
0.80
自引率
20.00%
发文量
22
×
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