Ostracism drives group moralization and extreme group behavior

From Envy to Radicalization

Models of radicalization have typically placed grievances at the heart of radicalization. In contrast, we argue that viewing the radicalizing agent as decidedly proactive, and less reactive, better accounts for the available data. At the core of our radicalization model is the functional structure of envy. The operative properties of the emotion align with essential and conspicuous features of the radicalization process: a motivation to monitor social differentials, an identification of sources of postulated welfare costs, an impulse to eliminate or depower purported competitors, an attempt to diffuse responsibility for one's aggressive actions, and the rejoicing at the envied agent's misfortune. Two of those operative properties are particularly important for our understanding of radicalization. Envy motivates the neutralization of competitors when responsibility for welfare costs is not objectively attributable to others' wrongdoing toward the party who feels injured. The "process of typification" serves as a means to diffuse responsibility. It extends the reach of individual concerns by downplaying the particulars of the personal situation motivating the envious agent while evoking universally shared interaction templates (e.g., humiliation, injustice) to appeal to a broader audience.

Effect of interpersonal conflicts and the moderating effect of the dispositional need to belong on binge eating

The dispositional need to belong (dNTB) is a stable desire to connect with others and belong to groups. Recently, it has been stated that dNTB can alter immediate post-interpersonal conflict behavior. Interpersonal conflict stress is one of the triggers of binge eating. An individual's vulnerability to binge eating in response to interpersonal conflicts before it becomes a disorder has not been investigated from the perspective of the interaction between interpersonal conflict and dNTB. We conducted two studies examining the relationships between interpersonal conflicts and dNTB and the frequency of binge eating behavior in daily life. Conflicting predictions have been made about whether people with a high dNTB eat more after interpersonal conflict than those with a low dNTB. In Study 1, 199 university students answered the survey concerning their dNTB and frequency of interpersonal conflict and binge eating. The results revealed that higher dNTB is associated with more frequent binge eating when individuals face interpersonal conflict. In Study 2, 416 adults throughout Japan participated in the same survey; the results replicated those from Study 1. For exploratory purposes, mental health and other eating behaviors (restrained, emotional, and external eating) were measured in Studies 1 and 2, respectively. However, the moderation effects of dNTB on these eating behaviors were not observed. Previous studies suggested that individuals with a low dNTB ate more in response to social exclusion. This might be due to an immediate interpersonal stress reaction to social exclusion. Conversely, this study's results implicate that the modulation effects of dNTB on excessive eating habits are different from those immediately following interpersonal conflict.

Dispositional need to belong and increased eating after social exclusion

Social exclusion affects the fundamental needs of individuals, and their coping behavior is moderated by their dispositional need to belong. Eating can be one such behavior. However, it is unclear how people with a higher or lower dispositional need to belong respond with respect to food consumption in response to social exclusion. Thus, this study aims to investigate which of these groups eat more food after social exclusion. Ninety-seven university students in Japan participated in two types of Cyberball games (where they either experienced social exclusion or social inclusion) in which their social exclusion status was manipulated. They subsequently participated in a test in which they ate as many cookies as they desired. Finally, they answered questions about their dispositional need to belong. Their BMI was also recorded. Results showed that when socially excluded, individuals with a low need to belong increased their consumption, while those with a high need to belong did not. We suggest that people with a lower need to belong are more inclined to focus on goals other than inclusion and instead use eating as a coping mechanism.

When ostracism is mandated: COVID-19, social distancing, and psychological needs

Social distancing to limit the spread of COVID-19 poses a unique psychological challenge, especially in light of evidence for the importance of even minimal cues of inclusion. In a German (N = 546) and a US (N = 199) sample, we examined the impact of work-related social distancing on the outcomes of ostracism, measuring need fulfillment in self-esteem, belonging, control, and meaning. Overall, social distancing was associated with decreased need fulfillment. German participants reported a higher need fulfillment compared to American participants. Compared to previous studies, social distancing impacted self-related need fulfillment less than experimental manipulations of ostracism, however more so than the baseline condition of inclusion. Working, while social distancing was associated with greater need fulfillment, as was identifying as male. Women reported lower need fulfillment overall and this difference was mediated by the need to belong. Results are discussed in terms of understanding self-related needs in different contexts of isolation.

How group processes push excluded people into a radical mindset: An experimental investigation

Social exclusion is a condition that seems to allow terrorism to flourish. Since radicalization is argued to occur mostly in the context of group identification and accompanying processes, we hypothesized that these may contribute to pushing excluded individuals toward radicalism. To investigate this, we performed four studies. In Studies 1 to 3, we conducted experiments in which we manipulated exclusion (vs. inclusion), created new in-groups, and measured radicalism intentions in the context of eco- or animal rights extremism. In Study 4, we tested the focal variables in a reanalysis of coded qualitative data on an Islamist sample. In Study 1, the exclusion–radicalism link revealed to be mediated by in-group sympathy as opposed to out-group antipathy. Studies 2 to 4 specifically identified perceived group threat as a driver of radicalism in the aftermath of exclusion. This work provides first experimental evidence for the catalyzing power of relationships in the exclusion–radicalism link.

You Are Not Alone!

Abstract. Experiencing ostracism is a painful situation that can urge a desire to restore social bonds. However, few studies have investigated the conditions under which it leads to ingroup identification. In three studies using minimal groups ( N = 611), we have investigated the consequences of coexperiencing ostracism for group identification and well-being. In Study 1a and 1b ( N = 171; N = 211), the results showed that sharing a common experience of ostracism with an ingroup member increases ingroup identification but does not improve psychological needs during the ostracism experience. In Study 2 ( N = 230), we replicated our results on identification and showed that sharing ostracism fosters psychological closeness with the partner ostracized but does not moderate need recovery.

Cognitive and behavioral radicalization: A systematic review of the putative risk and protective factors

Background

Two of the most central questions in radicalization research are, (1) why do some individuals radicalize when most of those from the same groups or exposed to similar conditions do not? and (2) why do radicalized individuals turn to radical violence while the majority remain inert? It has been suggested that the answer to both questions lie in the cumulative and interactive effects of a range of risk factors. While risk assessment and counter-radicalization take a risk-protective factor approach, there is widespread debate as to what these factors are and which are most important.

Objectives

This review has two primary objectives.1) To identify what the putative risk and protective factors for different radicalization outcomes are, without any predeterminations.2) To synthesize the evidence and identify the relative magnitude of the effects of different factors.The review's secondary objectives are to:1) Identify consistencies in the estimates of factors across different radicalization outcomes.2) Identify whether any significant heterogeneity exists within factors between (a) geographic regions, and (b) strains of radicalizing ideologies.

Search Methods

Over 20 databases were searched for both published and gray literature. In order to provide a more comprehensive review, supplementary searches were conducted in two German and one Dutch database. Reference harvesting was conducted from previous reviews and contact was made with leading researchers to identify and acquire missing or unpublished studies.

Selection Criteria

The review included observational studies assessing the outcomes of radical attitudes, intentions, and/or radical behaviors in OECD countries and which provided sufficient data to calculate effect sizes for individual-level risk and protective factors.

Data Collection and Analysis

One-hundred and twenty-seven studies, containing 206 samples met the inclusion criteria and provided 1302 effect sizes pertaining to over 100 different factors. Random effects meta-analyses were carried out for each factor, and meta-regression and moderator analysis were used to explore differences across studies.

Results

Studies were primarily cross-sectional, with samples representing 20 countries OECD countries. Most studies examined no specific radicalizing ideology, while others focussed on specific ideologies (e.g., Islamist, right-wing, and left-wing ideologies). The studies generally demonstrated low risk of bias and utilized validated or widely acceptable measures for both indicators and outcomes. With some exceptions, sociodemographic factors tend to have the smallest estimates, with larger estimates for experiential and attitudinal factors, followed by traditional criminogenic and psychological factors.

Authors' Conclusions

While sociodemographic factors are the most commonly examined factors (selective availability), they also tend to have the smallest estimates. So too, attitudinal and even experiential factors, do not have effect sizes of the magnitude that could lead to significant reductions in risk through targeting by interventions. Conversely, traditional criminogenic factors, as well as psychological factors tend to display the largest estimates. These findings suggest the need to broaden the scope of factors considered in both risk assessment and intervention, and this review provides much needed evidence for guiding the selection of factors.

Exploring a pathway to radicalization: The effects of social exclusion and rejection sensitivity

This article aims to explore if social exclusion can constitute a pathway to radicalization, and if individual level of sensitivity of rejection moderates the effect of social exclusion. Humans innately seek belonging and meaning, and strive for re-establishing a sense of value and belongingness if faced with social exclusion. One way to achieve this is by adherence to a new and inviting group. In four studies, we test to what extent individuals who face social exclusion adapt to a radical including group. In Studies 1 ( n = 104) and 2 ( n = 308), we use a social media-like paradigm to manipulate social exclusion. In Study 3 ( n = 1041), we use the so-called Cyberball paradigm, and in Study 4 ( n = 40) we use a real-life manipulation. All studies show that rejected individuals who are sensitive to rejection are more prone to identify with, engage with and endorse an extreme group. The results hold over both ideological (Studies 1–3) and non-ideological (Study 4) content. Only the last study showed a main effect of social exclusion. We discuss the results in reference to the significance loss model of radicalization.