Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42787068›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026

An international tournament of risk factors for radical intentions: evidence from 40 countries.

Jocelyn J Bélanger, Angel Gómez, Daniel Snook, Jais Adam-Troian, Michael Wolfowicz, Shadi Akariya, Jannis Kreienkamp, Justin König, Maximilian Agostini, Alexander P Landry and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 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

11 authors.

Jocelyn J BélangerHumanities and Social Sciences, Carnegie Mellon University in Qatar, Doha, Qatar.
Angel GómezDepartment of Social and Organizational Psychology, Universidad Nacional de Educacion a Distancia, Madrid, Spain.
Daniel SnookDepartment of Psychology, Florida Gulf Coast University, Fort Myers, FL, United States.
Jais Adam-TroianSchool of Social Sciences, Heriot-Watt University Dubai, Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
Michael WolfowiczInstitute of Criminology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel.
Shadi AkariyaInstitute of Criminology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel.
Jannis KreienkampThe Dataflow Company, Franconia, Germany.
Justin KönigThe Dataflow Company, Franconia, Germany.
Maximilian AgostiniThe Dataflow Company, Franconia, Germany.
Alexander P LandryStanford Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States.
N Pontus LeanderDepartment of Psychology, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Understanding the risk factors linked to violent extremism remains a central challenge in radicalization research. This study examined which risk factors are most robustly associated with radical intentions-the willingness to use violence in support of an ideology. Methods: Using general-population samples from 40 countries ( Results: Across analytic methods and ideological targets, three risk factors consistently retained robust independent associations with radical intentions: moral neutralization (cognitive justification of violence), obsessive passion (rigid, ego-involving commitment), and perceived discrimination (subjective group-based injustice). These associations were stable within and across countries and largely invariant across ideological domains. In the incarcerated jihadist sample, moral neutralization and obsessive passion remained consistent correlates of radical intentions, whereas perceived discrimination showed a weaker and less certain association. Discussion: Collectively, these findings identify a moral-motivational-grievance combination that is robustly associated with radical intentions across ideologies. We situate this combination within major theoretical frameworks-including the 3N model, Moghaddam's staircase model, Borum's four-stage model, and social-movement frameworks-to clarify how these robust correlates align with constructs emphasized in theories of radicalization. The findings suggest testable prevention hypotheses concerning moral justifications for violence, rigid ideological engagement, and experiences of discrimination.

Indexed as

moral neutralizationobsessive passionperceived discriminationradical intentionsviolent extremism

Identifiers

PMID42787068
PMCPMC13600905

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.