Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41723599›Full record

ArticleAggressive behavior2026

Conceptualizing and Measuring Support for Collective Violence.

Ramzi Abou-Ismail, Joseph B Phillips, Aleksandra Cichocka, Hakan Çakmak, Sami Çoksan, Nikhil K Sengupta

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Aggressive behavior, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

Ramzi Abou-IsmailSchool of Arts and Sciences - Department of Political and International Studies, Lebanese American University, Beirut, Lebanon.ORCID 0000-0003-4103-2941
Joseph B PhillipsSchool of Law & Politics, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales.ORCID 0000-0003-0084-4601
Aleksandra CichockaSchool of Psychology, University of Kent, Canterbury, England.
Hakan ÇakmakDepartment of Social Psychology, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-4617-4191
Sami ÇoksanDepartment of Psychology, Western University, London, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-2942-1506
Nikhil K SenguptaSchool of Psychology, University of Kent, Canterbury, England.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although collective violence remains a pervasive issue affecting many societies today, the specific psychological mechanisms underlying individual differences in support for collective violence are relatively understudied. In four studies, using five samples from Lebanon, Syria, and Turkey (total N = 3758), we conceptualize and develop a new multidimensional scale for measuring individual differences in collective violence beliefs. Contrary to some prior theorizing and extant research on interpersonal violence, we found that people's justifications for collective violence are structured based on the target of the act rather than the intensity of the violent act. Consequently, we developed and validated a Two-Dimensional Collective Violence Beliefs Scale (CVBS: 2D) that distinguishes between violence targeted at outgroup members, referred to as diffuse collective violence, and violence targeted at outgroup leaders, which we term upward collective violence. We validate this novel scale in multiple contexts and discuss the implications of the two dimensions of collective violence revealed in this study.

Indexed as

Interpersonal RelationsSocial IdentificationViolenceAdultFemaleGroup DynamicsHumansLebanonMaleSocial GroupSyriaTurkeyYoung Adultcollective violenceintergroup conflictmeasurementscale developmentsocial identity

Identifiers

PMID41723599
PMCPMC12925330

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.