Threats to society in the digital age: the phenomenon of online radicalization

Author/s Eleonora Coleschi, Enrico Imbimbo, Andrea Guazzini
Publishing Year 2020 Issue 2019/2 Language English
Pages 12 P. 28-39 File size 158 KB
DOI 10.3280/PSC2019-002003
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

The phenomenon of Radicalization has always been a matter of interest in human dynam-ics, especially with reference to social groups. Following the information and communication technologies (ICT) revolution, many scholars and psychologists tried to understand how this phenomenon may occur within online contexts. The current paper intends to give a review about the impact of the setting on the Radicalization potential, which may occur inside real and "virtual" groups. State of the art was analysed considering environmental and psycho-social factors, and the most recent experimental evidence. The purpose of this work is to bring in-sights to model the Online Radicalization phenomenon in order to identify future perspectives to investigate, and to extend knowledge and strategies for the containment of Violent Radicali-zation dynamics.

Keywords: Online radicalization, online environments, group dynamics, polarization, deindi-viduation, risky shift.

  1. Alimi, E., Bosi, L., & Demetriou, C. (2012). Relational dynamics and processes of radicalization: A comparative framework. Mobilization: An International Quarterly, 17(1), 7-26.
  2. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  3. Bermingham, A., Conway, M., McInerney, L., O’Hare, N., & Smeaton, A. F. (2009). Combining social network analysis and sentiment analysis to explore the potential for online radicalisation. In 2009 International Conference on Advances in Social Network Analysis and Mining (pp. 231-236). IEEE.
  4. Böhlke, O. (2013). A comparison of student participation levels by group size and language stages during chatroom and face-to-face discussions in German. CALICO Journal, 21(1), 67-97.
  5. Cialdini, R. B. (2009). Influence: Science and practice. NY: William Morrow.
  6. Cinnirella, M., & Green, B. (2007). Does ‘‘cyber-conformity” vary cross-culturally? Exploring the effect of culture and communication medium on social conformity. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(4), 2011-2025.
  7. Detert, J. R., Treviño, L. K., & Sweitzer, V. L. (2008). Moral disengagement in ethical decision making: a study of antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 374-391. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.37
  8. Eisenberg, N., Guthrie, I. K., Murphy, B. C., Shepard, S. A., Cumberland, A., & Carlo, G. (1999). Consistency and development of prosocial dispositions: A longitudinal study. Child Development, 70(6), 1360-1372. DOI: 10.1111/1467-8624.0010
  9. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance (Vol. 2). Stanford University Press.
  10. Geschke, D., Lorenz, J., & Holtz, P. (2019). The triple‐filter bubble: Using agent‐based modelling to test a meta‐theoretical framework for the emergence of filter bubbles and echo chambers. British Journal of Social Psychology, 58(1), 129-149.
  11. Greif, A. (1994). Cultural beliefs and the organization of society: A historical and theoretical reflection on collectivist and individualist societies. Journal of political economy, 102(5), 912-950. DOI: 10.1086/26195
  12. Guadagno, R. E., Muscanell, N. L., Rice, L. M., & Roberts, N. (2013). Social influence online: The impact of social validation and likability on compliance. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 2(1), 51-60.
  13. Hiltz, S. R., & Turoff, M. (1993). The network nation: Human communication via computer. Mit Press.
  14. Kumar, U., & Mandal, M. K. (Eds.). (2014). Understanding suicide terrorism: Psychosocial dynamics. SAGE Publishing India.
  15. Liao, Q. V, & Fu, W. T. (2014). Can you hear me now? Mitigating the echo chamber effect by source position indicators. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work & social computing (pp. 184-196). ACM.
  16. Livingstone, A. G., Haslam, S. A., Postmes, T., & Jetten, J. (2011). “We Are, Therefore We Should”: Evidence That In‐Group Identification Mediates the Acquisition of In‐Group Norms 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41(8), 1857-1876.
  17. McCauley, C., & Moskalenko, S. (2008). Mechanisms of political radicalization: Pathways toward terrorism. Terrorism and political violence, 20(3), 415-433. DOI: 10.1080/0954655080207336
  18. McKenna, K. Y., & Green, A. S. (2002). Virtual group dynamics. Group dynamics: theory, research, and practice, 6(1), 116-127. DOI: 10.1037//1089-2699.6.1.11
  19. Moscovici, S., & Zavalloni, M. (1969). The group as a polarizer of attitudes. Journal of personality and social psychology, 12(2), 125.135.
  20. Mueller, S. T, & Tan, Y. Y. S. (2018). Cognitive perspectives on opinion dynamics: the role of knowledge in consensus formation, opinion divergence, and group polarization. Journal of Computational Social Science, 1(1), 15-48.
  21. Pfeffer, J., Zorbach, T., & Carley, K. M. (2014). Understanding online firestorms: Negative word-of-mouth dynamics in social media networks. Journal of Marketing Communications, 20(1-2), 117-128. DOI: 10.1080/13527266.2013.79777
  22. Rahimullah, R. H., Larmar, S., & Abdalla, M. (2013). Understanding violent radicalization amongst Muslims: A review of the literature. Journal of Psychology and Behavioral Science, 1(1), 19-35
  23. Spears, R., Lea, M., & Lee, S. (1990). Deindividuation and group polarization in computer-mediated communication. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 121-134.
  24. Sunstein, C. R. (2001). Echo chambers: Bush v. Gore, impeachment, and beyond. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  25. Vilanova, F., Beria, F. M., Costa, B., & Koller, S. H. (2017). Deindividuation: From Le Bon to the social identity model of deindividuation effects. Cogent Psychology, 4(1). DOI: 10.1080/23311908.2017.130810
  26. Wallach, M. A., Kogan, N., & Bem, D. J. (1964). Diffusion of responsibility and level of risk taking in groups. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 68(3), 263.
  27. Warschauer, M. (1995). Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language classroom. CALICO journal, 13(2-3), 7-26.
  28. Wojcieszak, M. (2010). ‘Don’t talk to me’: effects of ideologically homogeneous online groups and politically dissimilar offline ties on extremism. New Media & Society, 12(4), 637-655. DOI: 10.1177/146144480934277
  29. Zimbardo, P. (1970). The human choice: Individuation, reason, and order versus deindividuation, impulse and chaos. In W. J. Arnold & D. Levine (Eds.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1969. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press

  • Preventing Violent Radicalisation in Europe Andrea Guazzini, Federica Stefanelli, Enrico Imbimbo, pp.191 (ISBN:978-3-030-52047-2)

Eleonora Coleschi, Enrico Imbimbo, Andrea Guazzini, Threats to society in the digital age: the phenomenon of online radicalization in "PSICOLOGIA DI COMUNITA’" 2/2019, pp 28-39, DOI: 10.3280/PSC2019-002003