“I Know that I don’t Know Anything”. Socio-Cognitive Antecedents of the Radicalization

Objective. Analysis of the relationship between loss of personal significance, intellectual humility, the need for cognitive closure, and support for radicalisation. Background. Psychological studies of the process of radicalization make a significant contribution to the explanation of this negative socio-political phenomenon. One of the questions from these studies is how cognitive rigidity is related to ideological extremism. Study design. The study examined the relationship between loss of personal significance, intellectual humility, and support for radical views mediated by the need for cognitive closure. The presence and nature of the relationship were checked using a path analysis performed in the AMOS 23 program. Participants. 365 residents from Russia (78.5% women), age from 20 to 66 years (M=42.11; SD=11.62). The majority of the sample has a higher education (94.1%), the rest have secondary or specialized secondary education. 41.8% of the respondents identified themselves as Christians, 17.8% as Agnostics, 11.7% as atheists, 10.1% as Muslims, the rest-as other faiths or chose to skip this item of the questionnaire. Measurements. Russian-language versions of the short scale of scales of the need for cognitive closure by D. Webber and A. Kruglansky; the scale of intellectual humility by M. Leary et al. and the scale of loss of personal significance. A questionnaire for assessing support for radical violence. Results. The direct effect of loss of personal importance on the support of radical views is mediated by the need for cognitive closure. The reverse effect of intellectual humility on the support of radical views is mediated by the need for cognitive completeness. Conclusions. The study demonstrates the significance of the “cognitive vulnerability” of supporting extremist ideology, which is extremely important for understanding the personal aspects of both radicalization and deradicalization.

1. Kuznetsov I.M., Khukhlaev O.E. Sotsial’no-psikhologicheskii monitoring riskov mezhnatsional’noi konfliktnosti: metodologiya i praktika [Social Psychological Monitoring of Interethnic Conflicts Methodology and Practice] // Sotsial’naya psikhologiya i obshchestvo = Social Psychology and Society, 2013. Vol. 4. No. 1. P. 104—113. (In Russ.).
2. Bélanger J.J. et al. Radicalization leading to violence: A test of the 3N model // Frontiers in Psychiatry. 2019. Vol. 10. No. FEB. P. 1—12.
3. Bélanger J.J. et al. Do Counter-Narratives Reduce Support for ISIS? Yes, but Not for Their Target Audience // Frontiers in Psychology. 2020. Vol. 11. No. June. P. 1—11.
4. Bernabé-Valero G. et al. The moderating role of intellectual humility in the adoption of ICT: A study across life-span // Frontiers in Psychology. 2018. Vol. 9. No. Dec. P. 1—6.
5. Brienza J.P., Chao M.M. Wise reasoning, intergroup positivity, and attitude polarization across contexts // Nature Communications. 2021. P. 1—11.
6. Colombo M. et al. Intellectually Humble, but Prejudiced People. A Paradox of Intellectual Virtue // Review of Philosophy and Psychology. 2020.
7. Deffler S.A., Leary M.R., Hoyle R.H. Knowing what you know: Intellectual humility and judgments of recognition memory // Personality and Individual Differences. 2016. Vol. 96. P. 255—259.
8. Dugas M. et al. Group-centric attitudes mediate the relationship between need for closure and intergroup hostility // Group Processes & Intergroup Relations. 2018. Vol. 21. No. 8. P. 1155—1171.
9. Federico C.M., Hunt C.V., Fisher E.L. Uncertainty and Status-Based Asymmetries in the Distinction Between the «Good» Us and the «Bad» Them: Evidence That Group Status Strengthens the Relationship Between the Need for Cognitive Closure and Extremity in Intergroup Differentiation // Journal of Social Issues. 2013. Vol. 69. No. 3. P. 473—494. DOI:10.1111/josi.12025
10. Gómez Á. et al. Why People Enter and Embrace Violent Groups // Frontiers in Psychology. 2021. Vol. 11. No. January. DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.614657
11. Hayes A.F. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis. NY, US: Guilford Press, 2018. 692 p.
12. Hogg M.A., Kruglanski A., Bos K. van Den. Uncertainty and the Roots of Extremism // Journal of Social Issues. 2013. Vol. 69. No. 3. P. 407—418.
13. Hook J.N. et al. Intellectual humility and religious tolerance // The Journal of Positive Psychology. 2017. Vol. 12. No. 1. P. 29—35. DOI:10.1080/17439760.2016.1167937
14. Hu L.-T., Bentler P.M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives // Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal. 1999. Vol. 6. No. July 2012. P. 1—55. DOI:10.1080/10705519909540118
15. Jasko K., LaFree G., Kruglanski A. Quest for Significance and Violent Extremism: The Case of Domestic Radicalization // Political Psychology. 2017. Vol. 38. No. 5. P. 815—831.
16. Jost J.T. et al. Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition // Psychol Bull. 2003. Vol. 129. No. 3. P. 339—375. DOI:10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339
17. Keersmaecker J. De et al. Disliked but Free to Speak: Cognitive Ability Is Related to Supporting Freedom of Speech for Groups Across the Ideological Spectrum // Social Psychological and Personality Science. 2021. Vol. 12. No. 1. P. 34—41.
18. Kossowska M. et al. Disparate roads to certainty processing strategy choices under need for closure // European Review of Social Psychology. 2018. Vol. 29. No. 1. P. 161—211.
19. Kossowska M., Dragon P., Bukowski M. When need for closure leads to positive attitudes towards a negatively stereotyped outgroup // Motivation and Emotion. 2014. Vol. 39. No. 1. P. 88—98. DOI:10.1007/s11031-014-9414-5
20. Kruglanski A. et al. The making of violent extremists // Review of General Psychology. 2018a. Vol. 22. No. 1. P. 107—120.
21. Kruglanski A.W. et al. To the fringe and back: Violent extremism and the psychology of deviance // American Psychologist. 2017. Vol. 72. No. 3. P. 217—230.
22. Kruglanski A.W., Bélanger J.J., Gunaratna R. The Three Pillars of Radicalization // The Three Pillars of Radicalization. 2019. DOI:10.1093/oso/9780190851125.001.0001
23. Krumrei-Mancuso E.J. et al. Links between intellectual humility and acquiring knowledge // The Journal of Positive Psychology. 2020. Vol. 15. No. 2. P. 155—170. DOI:10.1080/17439760.2019.1579359
24. Krumrei-Mancuso E.J., Rouse S.V. The development and validation of the comprehensive intellectual humility scale // Journal of Personality Assessment. 2016. Vol. 98. No. 2. P. 209—221.
25. Leary M.R. et al. Cognitive and Interpersonal Features of Intellectual Humility // Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2017. Vol. 43. No. 6. P. 793—813.
26. Marriott R.J., Hall M.E.L., Decker L.A. Psychological correlates of reasons for nonbelief: tolerance of ambiguity, intellectual humility, and attachment // Mental Health, Religion and Culture. 2019. P. 1—20.
27. McElroy S.E. et al. Intellectual Humility: Scale Development and Theoretical Elaborations in the Context of Religious Leadership // Journal of Psychology and Theology. 2014. Vol. 42. No. 1. P. 19—30.
28. Ozer S., Bertelsen P. Countering radicalization: An empirical examination from a life psychological perspective // Peace and Conflict Journal of Peace Psychology. 2019. Vol. 25. No. 3. P. 211—225.
29. Rodriguez D. et al. Religious intellectual humility, attitude change, and closeness following religious disagreement // The Journal of Positive Psychology. 2019. Vol. 14. No. 2. P. 133—140.
30. Roets A., Hiel A. Van. Allport’s prejudiced personality today: Need for closure as the motivated cognitive basis of prejudice // Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2011. Vol. 20. No. 6. P. 349—354.
31. Roets A., Hiel A. Van. Item selection and validation of a brief, 15-item version of the Need for Closure Scale // Personality and Individual Differences. 2011. Vol. 50. No. 1. P. 90—94.
32. Stankov L. From social conservatism and authoritarian populism to militant right-wing extremism // Personality and Individual Differences. 2021. Vol. 175. No. January. P. 110733.
33. Stankov L., Saucier G., Knežević G. Militant Extremist Mind-Set: Proviolence, Vile World, and Divine Power // Psychological Assessment. 2010. Vol. 22. No. 1. P. 70—86.
34. Stanley M.L., Sinclair A.H., Seli P. Intellectual humility and perceptions of political opponents // Journal of Personality. 2020. Vol. 88. No. 6. P. 1196—1216.
35. Webber D. et al. The road to extremism: Field and experimental evidence that significance loss-induced need for closure fosters radicalization // Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2018. Vol. 114. No. 2. P. 270—285.
36. Webber D. et al. Ideologies that justify political violence // Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences. 2020. Vol. 34. No. February. P. 107—111.
37. Webber D., Kruglanski A.W. Psychological Factors in Radicalization: A «3 N» Approach // The Handbook of the Criminology of Terrorism. 2017. No. 1. P. 33—46.
38. Zhang H. et al. Intellectual Humility and Forgiveness of Religious Conflict // Journal of Psychology and Theology. 2015. Vol. 43. No. 4. P. 255—262.
39. Zmigrod L. et al. The psychological roots of intellectual humility: The role of intelligence and cognitive flexibility // Personality and Individual Differences. 2019. Vol. 141. No. September 2018. P. 200—208.
40. Zmigrod L. The role of cognitive rigidity in political ideologies: theory, evidence, and future directions // Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences. 2020. Vol. 34. P. 34—39.
41. Zmigrod L., Rentfrow P.J., Robbins T.W. Cognitive inflexibility predicts extremist attitudes // Frontiers in Psychology. 2019. Vol. 10. No. MAY. P. 1—13.