Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37948411›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Contextualizing involvement in terrorist violence by considering non-significant findings: Using null results and temporal perspectives to better understand radicalization outcomes.

Bart Schuurman, Sarah L Carthy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Bart SchuurmanInstitute of Security and Global Affairs, Leiden University, The Hague, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-2531-0625
Sarah L CarthyInstitute of Security and Global Affairs, Leiden University, The Hague, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Irrespective of discipline, the publication of null or non-significant findings is rare in the social sciences. For burgeoning fields like terrorism research, this is particularly problematic. As well as increasing the likelihood of Type II errors, the selective reporting of significant findings ultimately impedes progression, hindering comprehensive syntheses of evidence and enabling ill-supported lines of scientific enquiry to persist. This manuscript discusses several structural and individual-level variables which failed to produce significant, linear associations with involvement in terrorist violence in a dataset (N = 206) of right-wing and jihadist extremists active in Europe and North America. After considering methodological factors such as non-random distributions of missing data, we illustrate how certain variables are significantly associated with involvement in terrorist violence at particular periods in a radicalizing individual's lifespan, but not others (i.e., pre- or post-radicalization onset). Moreover, we demonstrate that while some static, binary constructs (such as whether or not a radicalizing individual was exposed to diverse viewpoints) are not associated with terrorist violence, their influence over time produces different associations. We conclude that radicalization may be less about individuals having pre-disposing risk factors, such as biographical stressors, and more about cognitive changes that allow individuals to re-evaluate their lives through the lens of an extremist ideology. We also underline the importance of taking a temporal, rather than static, perspective to better understand the variables associated with the outcomes of radicalization trajectories.

Indexed as

Negative ResultsTerrorismEuropeHumansSocial SciencesViolence

Identifiers

PMID37948411
PMCPMC10637664

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.