Psychology, behaviour studies and de-radicalisation

Evaluating outcomes of de-radicalisation programmes is a key topic of research. The aim is to understand why a programme may work for some individuals but not others. One recent offering is an adaptation of the “Innovative Moments Coding System”. This method for determining de-radicalisation of an individual is based on establishing the degree to which there has been a transformation of the self through autobiographical narratives. Through in-depth interviews with participants of a deradicalisation programme, the aim is to establish when and where they began to ‘see themselves differently’.

These changes in individuals’ actions, thoughts and feelings have been termed Innovative Moments (IMs) and can be categorised under three levels:

• Level 1 – when the individual distances themselves from the problem;
• Level 2 – when the person starts to voice how they could change; and
• Level 3 – when the individual makes the necessary changes. Identifying if these levels have been achieved in relation to political violence (and to what extent) can help determine whether an individual is ‘de-radicalised’.

Another study that looks to individual approaches to understanding radicalisation makes use of neuro-imaging technology. Here the objective is to identify an individual’s’ entry points into violent extremism. The researchers attempted to uncover different decision pathways mediating willingness to fight and die for sacred values compared with non-sacred values in the same individuals. They found that once ‘sacred values’ entered into the decision-making, cost-benefit calculations were disrupted at the neurological level. Sacred values appeared to work as a heuristic, making decisions easy to solve, or cached-offline, whereas decisions regarding non-sacred values would involve some degree of calculation. They also found that community feedback and peer judgement was influential in decision-making for sacred values (i.e. it shifted the willingness to fight and die).

The research suggested that while social network interventions are unlikely to reduce commitment to a scared value, they could reduce adherence to violent options. This means that attempting to persuade radicalised individuals through rational arguments will have little effect, and may backfire especially if they also attack core values. Instead, peer-groups, family and friends are seen as crucial in preventing recidivism. It also suggests that focusing on disengagement or demobilisation may be more viable than ‘de-radicalisation’. The risk with this research is pathologizing of extremists and members of terrorist groups as it is translated into policy or interventions.

The use of psychological research in the field of CVE, is an issue presented in Foreign Policy, where they examined “Significance Quest Theory” (SQT) and “cognitive openings” in both individual radicalisation and de-radicalisation. The authors found that positive redirection of a person’s life was important to develop more complex multifaceted “de-radicalised" lives. However, the authors were also cautious about the role of government in developing types of socio-psychologically orientated de–radicalisation programmes for concerns that there are human rights and legal implications, as well as question marks over the legitimacy and credibility of government interventions in ‘values’ debates.