谁认为恐怖主义是正当的?65个国家的机器学习分析

IF 2.3 2区 心理学 Q1 BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Mohsen Joshanloo
{"title":"谁认为恐怖主义是正当的?65个国家的机器学习分析","authors":"Mohsen Joshanloo","doi":"10.1002/ab.70049","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>This study applied Random Forest analysis to analyze 360 potential predictors of terrorism justification using data from the World Values Survey across 65 countries. Contrary to narratives that focus exclusively on religious extremism, the findings indicate that terrorism justification is more strongly associated with a worldview characterized by moral flexibility, antisocial values, and anti-democratic sentiment. An analysis of the top predictors revealed three overarching domains: (1) Normalization of Violence, where support for terrorism is closely linked to broader acceptance of aggression in political, interpersonal, and domestic contexts; (2) Moral Flexibility and Rule Violation, where individuals who justify terrorism also endorse dishonest behaviors such as bribery, theft, and fraud; and (3) Religious and Political Authoritarianism, characterized by support for governance based on religious authority and skepticism toward democratic institutions. These findings underscore the need for counter-radicalization strategies that address moral disengagement, promote democratic values, and strengthen trust in democratic governance.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":50842,"journal":{"name":"Aggressive Behavior","volume":"51 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Who Considers Terrorism Justifiable? A Machine Learning Analysis Across 65 Countries\",\"authors\":\"Mohsen Joshanloo\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/ab.70049\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n <p>This study applied Random Forest analysis to analyze 360 potential predictors of terrorism justification using data from the World Values Survey across 65 countries. Contrary to narratives that focus exclusively on religious extremism, the findings indicate that terrorism justification is more strongly associated with a worldview characterized by moral flexibility, antisocial values, and anti-democratic sentiment. An analysis of the top predictors revealed three overarching domains: (1) Normalization of Violence, where support for terrorism is closely linked to broader acceptance of aggression in political, interpersonal, and domestic contexts; (2) Moral Flexibility and Rule Violation, where individuals who justify terrorism also endorse dishonest behaviors such as bribery, theft, and fraud; and (3) Religious and Political Authoritarianism, characterized by support for governance based on religious authority and skepticism toward democratic institutions. These findings underscore the need for counter-radicalization strategies that address moral disengagement, promote democratic values, and strengthen trust in democratic governance.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50842,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Aggressive Behavior\",\"volume\":\"51 5\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Aggressive Behavior\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ab.70049\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Aggressive Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ab.70049","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究利用来自65个国家的世界价值观调查数据,应用随机森林分析分析了360个潜在的恐怖主义正当性预测因素。与专注于宗教极端主义的叙述相反,研究结果表明,恐怖主义的正当性与以道德灵活性、反社会价值观和反民主情绪为特征的世界观有更强的联系。对最主要预测因素的分析揭示了三个主要领域:(1)暴力正常化,其中对恐怖主义的支持与在政治、人际和国内环境中对侵略的广泛接受密切相关;(2)道德灵活性和违反规则,为恐怖主义辩护的个人也支持贿赂、盗窃和欺诈等不诚实行为;(3)宗教和政治威权主义,其特征是支持基于宗教权威的治理,对民主制度持怀疑态度。这些发现强调需要采取反激进化战略,解决道德脱离问题,促进民主价值观,加强对民主治理的信任。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Who Considers Terrorism Justifiable? A Machine Learning Analysis Across 65 Countries

This study applied Random Forest analysis to analyze 360 potential predictors of terrorism justification using data from the World Values Survey across 65 countries. Contrary to narratives that focus exclusively on religious extremism, the findings indicate that terrorism justification is more strongly associated with a worldview characterized by moral flexibility, antisocial values, and anti-democratic sentiment. An analysis of the top predictors revealed three overarching domains: (1) Normalization of Violence, where support for terrorism is closely linked to broader acceptance of aggression in political, interpersonal, and domestic contexts; (2) Moral Flexibility and Rule Violation, where individuals who justify terrorism also endorse dishonest behaviors such as bribery, theft, and fraud; and (3) Religious and Political Authoritarianism, characterized by support for governance based on religious authority and skepticism toward democratic institutions. These findings underscore the need for counter-radicalization strategies that address moral disengagement, promote democratic values, and strengthen trust in democratic governance.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Aggressive Behavior
Aggressive Behavior 医学-行为科学
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
3.40%
发文量
52
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Aggressive Behavior will consider manuscripts in the English language concerning the fields of Animal Behavior, Anthropology, Ethology, Psychiatry, Psychobiology, Psychology, and Sociology which relate to either overt or implied conflict behaviors. Papers concerning mechanisms underlying or influencing behaviors generally regarded as aggressive and the physiological and/or behavioral consequences of being subject to such behaviors will fall within the scope of the journal. Review articles will be considered as well as empirical and theoretical articles. Aggressive Behavior is the official journal of the International Society for Research on Aggression.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信