Search

This article presents an overview of the main determinants of radicalization and terrorism. Experienced discrimination plays an important role, and can be seen as threatening. This could amplify the importance of ideology and religious convictions, and these both unify the group and direct the behavior of the group. Perceived threats also result in emphasizing group identity and increases the cohesiveness of the threatened group. This may lead to polarization between groups and radicalization. This radicalization is also affected by cognitions, such as perceived inequity and injustice, as well as emotions such as anger and contempt. In a later phase of radicalization group processes, such as groupthink, and support from the wider social group may further strengthen radicalization. Justification processes, like dehumanizing the opponent, are also likely to play a role. Finally, the transition from radicalization to terrorism is discussed.

In a series of Suboptimal priming studies, it was shown that both affective and nonaffective reactions to a Stimulus may occur without awareness. Moreover. it was demonstrated that affective information is detected earlier than nonaffective information. Therefore, early reactions to an affect-laden stimulus (e.g., a smiling man) are cognitively unappraised and thus diffuse (e.g., "positive"), whereas later affective reactions can be more specific and distinct (e.g.. "a smiling man"). Through variations of prime exposure (extremely short. moderately short) the impact of early diffuse and late distinct affect on judgment was investigated. Findings show that distinctness (and prime-target similarity) is an essential determinant of whether the effect of affect is null, assimilation, or contrast. Furthermore, whether affect priming activates diffuse or distinct reactions is a matter of a fraction of seconds.

In four studies, the authors show that interpretation goals facilitate accessibility and stereotyping effects. Study I shows that priming traits that are descriptively inapplicable to a target stimulus affect target interpretations when an interpretation goal is primed but not when no such goal is present. Studies 2 and 3 show that the range of judgment dimensions affected by applicable trait primes increases when people are interpretation motivated. Studies 3 and 4 show that behavior that is only weakly related to stereotypical beliefs is interpreted in stereotypical terms when an interpretation goal is activated, whereas no such stereotyping effect occurs when perceivers are not so motivated. Implications for models of accessibility and stereotyping effects are discussed.

In 5 studies, the authors investigate the impact of self-activation on the occurrence and direction of social comparison effects. They show that self-evaluative comparison effects are more likely to occur when self-related cognitions are made cognitively accessible. Contrast occurs when personal self-construals ("I") are accessible, whereas assimilation occurs when social self-construals ("we") are activated, These effects of self-construal activation are similar to the impact of self-unrelated information processing styles that are often associated with personal and social self-accessibility (i.e., differentiation and integration mind-sets). However, whereas self-construal activation elicits self-serving social comparisons, activation of self-unrelated processing styles results in non-self-serving social comparison effects. Implications of these results for understanding the cognitive processes underlying social comparison effects are discussed.

The authors postulate that the outcome of social comparison processes is determined by the role social comparison information serves during the self-evaluation process. Assimilation is more likely in situations that instigate the inclusion of social comparison information in self-representations. Contrast is the more probable outcome when information about another person is used as a reference point for self-judgments. Whether comparison information instigates interpretation or comparison effects depends on the distinctness of this information as well as the perceived mutability of the self. The authors found support for their perspective using different types of manipulations of the distinctness construct, treating self-mutability as a contextual as well as an individual-difference variable, and measuring the effects of social comparisons on measures likely to reveal both assimilation and contrast effects (self-evaluative judgments and behavioral predictions), assimilation effects only (mood measures), and motivational self-repair effects (importance ratings of the focal comparison dimension). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

In a series of 4 studies, the inferential scope of assimilative knowledge accessibility effects was investigated. Evidence was found for the hypothesis that both the breadth and evaluative extremity of activated knowledge affect the range of evaluative inferences made during the interpretation of ambiguous targets. The scope of knowledge accessibility effects was larger when broad and extreme traits were primed than when narrow and moderate traits were primed. The contribution of the extremity component to this effect was stronger than the impact of the breadth component. Furthermore, the authors demonstrated that descriptive overlap between priming and target stimuli is not a necessary precondition for such interpretation effects to occur. Descriptive inapplicability may be compensated for when priming stimuli are sufficiently broad or extreme. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

The influence of the reliability and valence of sample information on generalization to in-group and out-group target populations was investigated in 2 studies. In both studies the valence of the information was either favorable (i.e., a positive in-group sample and a negative out-group sample) or unfavorable. The reliability of sample information was manipulated in terms of sample variability (Study 1) and sample size (Study 2). In both studies the perceived central tendency of favorable sample information was directly generalized, but unfavorable and unreliable sample information was not. Moreover, generalizations based on unfavorable and unreliable samples were characterized by enhanced variability estimates for both in-group and out-group populations, thereby undermining unfavorable group differences. These results are discussed in terms of strategic use of sample information in the formation of social stereotypes.