Callahan Perry A, Rosenfeld Barry
Department of Psychology, Fordham University.
Law Hum Behav. 2025 Aug;49(4):323-337. doi: 10.1037/lhb0000604. Epub 2025 Jul 10.
Although strong ideological commitment is often conceptualized as a necessary prerequisite for engaging in extremist violence, few studies have tested this assumption explicitly. The present study examined the relationship between radical beliefs and radical behavior and tested potential moderators between the two.
Individuals with higher levels of ideological commitment were expected to demonstrate more severe radical behaviors and higher rates of violence. Hypothesized risk factors-mental illness, nonextremist crime, and social ties to violent extremists-were expected to moderate this relationship, such that ideological commitment would be a stronger predictor of violence when these factors were absent. The strength of the association was also expected to differ depending on ideological affiliation.
This study used a subset of the Profiles of Individual Radicalization in the United States, a large ( = 2,103), open-source data set of individuals involved in far-right ( = 1,259), far-left ( = 289), and jihadist-inspired ( = 555) extremism. All data were coded on the basis of publicly available information. Outcome measures included radical behaviors and the probability of three maximum criminal severity outcomes: civil disobedience, violent plot involvement, and direct violence.
Ideological commitment was positively associated with radical behaviors and civil disobedience ( = 1.36) but not associated with increased risk of violent plot involvement ( = 0.95) or direct violence ( = 1.02). Moderation analyses showed that commitment was positively associated with radical behaviors and violence for jihadist-inspired individuals (who had the lowest base rate of direct violence) but not those in far-right or far-left groups. Other hypothesized moderators were not significant.
Ideological commitment does not appear to be a strong predictor of violence for the majority of individuals associated with extremism. Radical beliefs may thus be a poor proxy for violent intent, which has implications for both research and law enforcement practices. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
尽管强烈的意识形态承诺通常被概念化为参与极端暴力的必要前提，但很少有研究明确检验这一假设。本研究考察了激进信念与激进行为之间的关系，并检验了两者之间潜在的调节因素。
意识形态承诺水平较高的个体预计会表现出更严重的激进行为和更高的暴力发生率。假设的风险因素——精神疾病、非极端主义犯罪以及与暴力极端分子的社会联系——预计会调节这种关系，即当这些因素不存在时，意识形态承诺将成为暴力行为更强的预测指标。关联的强度预计也会因意识形态归属而有所不同。
本研究使用了美国个人激进化概况的一个子集，这是一个大型（N = 2103）的开源数据集，涉及极右翼（n = 1259）、极左翼（n = 289）和受圣战主义启发（n = 555）的极端主义个体。所有数据均根据公开信息进行编码。结果指标包括激进行为以及三种最高刑事严重程度结果的概率：公民抗命、参与暴力阴谋和直接暴力。
意识形态承诺与激进行为和公民抗命呈正相关（β = 1.36），但与参与暴力阴谋（β = 0.95）或直接暴力（β = 1.02）风险增加无关。调节分析表明，对于受圣战主义启发的个体（直接暴力发生率最低），承诺与激进行为和暴力呈正相关，但对于极右翼或极左翼群体则不然。其他假设的调节因素不显著。
对于大多数与极端主义相关的个体而言，意识形态承诺似乎并不是暴力行为的有力预测指标。因此，激进信念可能并不能很好地代表暴力意图，这对研究和执法实践都有影响。（PsycInfo数据库记录（c）2025美国心理学会，保留所有权利）
