Suppr超能文献

激进化是一个家庭问题吗?对与家庭相关的激进化风险因素、保护因素、后果及干预措施的系统综述。

Is radicalization a family issue? A systematic review of family-related risk and protective factors, consequences, and interventions against radicalization.

作者信息

Zych Izabela, Nasaescu Elena

机构信息

Department of Psychology University of Cordoba Cordoba Spain.

出版信息

Campbell Syst Rev. 2022 Jul 20;18(3):e1266. doi: 10.1002/cl2.1266. eCollection 2022 Sep.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Family-related risk and protective factors are crucial for different antisocial behaviors, but their role in radicalization requires synthesis. Radicalization is likely to have a negative impact on families, and well-designed and implemented family-focused intervention programs have the potential to decrease radicalization.

OBJECTIVES

Research questions were: (1) What are the family-related risk and protective factors for radicalization? (2) What is the impact of radicalization on families? (3) Are family-based interventions against radicalization effective?

SEARCH METHODS

Searches included 25 databases and hand searches of gray literature from April to July 2021. Leading researchers in the field were asked to provide published and unpublished studies on the topic. Reference lists of the included studies and previously published systematic reviews on risk and protective factors for radicalization were scanned.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Published and unpublished quantitative studies on family-related risk and protective factors for radicalization, the impact of radicalization on families, and family-focused interventions were eligible with no restrictions regarding the study year, location, or any demographic characteristic. Studies were included if they measured the relation between a family-related factor and radicalization or if they included a family-focused intervention against radicalization. For family-related risk and protective factors, radicalized individuals needed to be compared to general population. Studies were included if they defined radicalization as support or commission of violence to defend a cause, including support for radical groups.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The systematic search identified 86,591 studies. After screening, 33 studies focused on family-related risk and protective factors were included, with 89 primary effect sizes and 48 variables grouped in 14 factors. For the factors that included two or more studies, meta-analyses with random effects were conducted. When possible, moderator analyses were performed together with sensitivity and publication bias analyses. No studies on the impact of radicalization on families or family-focused interventions were included.

RESULTS

The current systematic review based on studies with 148,081 adults and adolescents from diverse geographic locations showed that parental ethnic socialization ( = 0.27), having extremist family members ( = 0.26), and family conflict ( = 0.11) were related to more radicalization, whereas high family socioeconomic status ( = -0.03), bigger family size ( = -0.05), and high family commitment ( = -0.06) were related to less radicalization. Separate analyses described family-factors for behavioral versus cognitive radicalization, and different radical ideologies including Islamist, right-wing and left-wing. It was not possible to distinguish risk and protective factors from correlates and the level of overall bias was mostly high. No results regarding the impact of radicalization on families or family-focused interventions were included.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although causal relations between family-related risk and protective factors could not be established, it is reasonable to suggest that policies and practice should aim at decreasing family-related risks and increasing protective factors for radicalization. Tailored interventions including these factors should be urgently designed, implemented and evaluated. Studies focused on the impact of radicalization on families and family-focused interventions are urgently needed together with longitudinal studies on family-related risk and protective factors.

摘要

背景

与家庭相关的风险和保护因素对不同的反社会行为至关重要,但其在激进化过程中的作用需要综合考量。激进化可能会对家庭产生负面影响,精心设计并实施的以家庭为中心的干预项目有可能减少激进化。

目的

研究问题如下:(1)激进化的家庭相关风险和保护因素有哪些?(2)激进化对家庭有何影响?(3)基于家庭的反激进化干预措施是否有效?

检索方法

检索涵盖了25个数据库,并于2021年4月至7月对手头的灰色文献进行了检索。该领域的顶尖研究人员被要求提供关于该主题的已发表和未发表的研究。对纳入研究的参考文献列表以及先前发表的关于激进化风险和保护因素的系统评价进行了筛查。

入选标准

关于激进化的家庭相关风险和保护因素、激进化对家庭的影响以及以家庭为中心的干预措施的已发表和未发表的定量研究均符合要求,对研究年份、地点或任何人口统计学特征没有限制。如果研究测量了与家庭相关因素和激进化之间的关系,或者包含针对激进化的以家庭为中心的干预措施,则纳入研究。对于家庭相关风险和保护因素,需要将激进化个体与普通人群进行比较。如果研究将激进化定义为为捍卫某项事业而支持或实施暴力行为,包括支持激进组织,则纳入研究。

数据收集与分析

系统检索共识别出86591项研究。经过筛选,纳入了33项关注家庭相关风险和保护因素的研究,有89个主要效应量和48个变量归为14个因素。对于包含两项或更多研究的因素,进行了随机效应的荟萃分析。在可能的情况下,进行了调节因素分析以及敏感性和发表偏倚分析。未纳入关于激进化对家庭的影响或以家庭为中心的干预措施的研究。

结果

基于对来自不同地理位置的148081名成年人和青少年的研究进行的当前系统评价表明,父母的种族社会化(效应量=0.27)、有极端主义家庭成员(效应量=0.26)和家庭冲突(效应量=0.11)与更多的激进化相关,而较高的家庭社会经济地位(效应量=-0.03)、较大的家庭规模(效应量=-0.05)和较高的家庭凝聚力(效应量=-0.06)与较少的激进化相关。单独分析描述了行为激进化与认知激进化的家庭因素,以及包括伊斯兰主义、右翼和左翼在内的不同激进意识形态。无法区分风险因素、保护因素与相关因素,总体偏倚水平大多较高。未纳入关于激进化对家庭的影响或以家庭为中心的干预措施的结果。

作者结论

尽管无法确定家庭相关风险和保护因素之间的因果关系,但合理的建议是,政策和实践应旨在降低与家庭相关的风险,并增加激进化的保护因素。应紧急设计、实施和评估包含这些因素的针对性干预措施。迫切需要开展关注激进化对家庭的影响以及以家庭为中心的干预措施的研究,同时需要对家庭相关风险和保护因素进行纵向研究。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6111/9300959/649044547c48/CL2-18-e1266-g004.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验