Chapter 3 The Role of the Quality of Social Relationships at School in Predicting Students’ Endorsement of a Pre-Extremist Attitude towards Religion

In: The Challenge of Radicalization and Extremism
Authors:
Eveline Gutzwiller-Helfenfinger
Search for other papers by Eveline Gutzwiller-Helfenfinger in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Johanna F. Ziemes
Search for other papers by Johanna F. Ziemes in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
, and
Hermann J. Abs
Search for other papers by Hermann J. Abs in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
Open Access

Abstract

Recent research suggests that radicalization must be seen as a process that evolves over time and that starts in childhood. According to Beelmann’s (2020) social-developmental model, the interplay between risk and protective factors in childhood and early adolescence impacts whether and how proximal radicalization processes, among them the acquisition of political or religious extremist ideologies, will be triggered. Some studies suggest that negative social relationships at school contribute to students’ risk for radicalization in addition to sociodemographic, education-related, and personality-related factors. Against this background, we investigated the relative contribution of the quality of relationships at school (student–teacher, student–student, victimization) to predicting pre-extremist attitudes in a normative sample of adolescents. We used the German data from the 2016 International Civic and Citizenship Education Study involving 1,451 eighth-grade students (mean age = 14.29; 52% girls). Bivariate associations for relationship quality and pre-extremist attitudes (religion being more important than national politics and laws) were very small. Hierarchical regressions indicated that being a Muslim, being a Christian, and frequently attending religious services each positively predicted pre-extremist attitudes. However, being a Muslim and attending religious services frequently strongly negatively predicted pre-extremist attitudes. This finding confirms earlier research indicating that Muslims’ intense religious practice may act as a protective factor against religious extremism and radicalization. Civic knowledge and socioeconomic status were found to be negative predictors of pre-extremist attitudes. Results are discussed from a combined developmental and educational perspective.

1 Radicalization and Extremism

[…] the developmental tasks of adolescents—among them developing a personal, social, and political identity, redefining bonds and relations, and forming new relationships—make them vulnerable to radical beliefs.

(Pels & de Ruyter, 2012, p. 313)

Political and religious radicalization and extremism pose a threat to the stability of democratic societies (e.g. Ghosh et al., 2017). Both the term extremism and the term radicalization have been defined in various ways (Beelmann, 2020), but a generalized specific terminology has not yet been developed (Lösel et al., 2018). Very simply, political, religious, or other forms of extremism can be described as a ‘significant deviation in attitudes and behaviour from basic legal and political norms and values within a social system (society or state) that seek their (at least partial) abolition and replacement’ (Beelmann, 2020, p. 2). Radicalization denotes the process by which these attitudes (sometimes also referred to as beliefs) and behaviours emerge and develop in individuals and groups, representing a ‘change in the individual’s psycho-cognitive construction of new identities’ (Ghosh et al., 2017, pp. 6–7). The beliefs adopted in this process serve to justify the use of violence for bringing about political and social change (Doosje et al., 2016; Lösel et al., 2018). Thus, the stability of democracies can be threatened by large groups of people undermining the support of its fundamental values. In the context of the present chapter, we address extremist attitudes and behaviours that are not in line with democratic values.

A growing body of research from various disciplines (e.g. sociology, criminology, political science, psychology) has searched for explanations for how, when, why, and under what circumstances extremism and radicalization emerge and develop, and has explored potential reasons for why they may assume violent forms like terrorism (e.g. Borum, 2011; 2014; Knight et al., 2017). One focus lies on exploring how and why (very) young individuals radicalize themselves. Findings from recent research indicate that social-developmental processes contribute to radicalization and extremism. Therefore, identity problems, prejudice, political or religious ideologies, and antisocial attitudes and behaviours have been described as ‘core conditions for radicalization and extremism’ (Beelmann, 2020, p. 1). Further theoretical explanations of radicalization include, for example, the ‘lone wolf’ trajectory; difficult childhood experiences like rejection, exclusion, or bullying due to a migrant history; association with violent or extremist groups; or identity problems during adolescence (e.g. Beelmann, 2020; Nivette et al., 2017).

The search for both push (driving people towards extremism) and pull factors (attracting people towards extremist groups and lifestyles; see Vergani et al., 2020) and the identification of specific risks and vulnerabilities have resulted in rich empirical and theoretical descriptions and the development of various process models. Examples are Borum’s (2014) contextualized model of ‘worldview, psychological vulnerabilities and propensities for involvement in violent extremism’ or Beelmann’s (2020) social-developmental model of radicalization, the latter focusing not only on the actual genesis of radicalization but also taking into account developmental preconditions.

Although not all extremism is violent (Knight et al., 2019), there seems to be a danger that, given certain circumstances, violent means might be employed by individuals and groups to achieve their goals, resulting, in extreme cases, in terrorist attacks (e.g. Ghosh et al., 2017). Drawing on Moghaddam’s (2005) metaphor of the ‘staircase to terrorism’, Ghosh et al. (2017) describe a stage model of transformative behaviour with fundamentalism at the bottom, followed by extremism, radicalism and, finally, terrorism in a sequence of continuously narrowing steps. The continuous narrowing of the steps represents the decreasing number of people who can be persuaded to continue ‘climbing’. Preventing (young) individuals from climbing the staircase towards violent and terrorist acts is seen as a core task for both society and education (Ghosh et al., 2017; Moghaddam, 2005).

Whilst the staircase model describes the behavioural side of radicalization with terrorist acts as the culmination of the process, the two-pyramid model by McCauley and Moskalenko (2017) distinguishes between behavioural and cognitive radicalization pathways. The cognitive pathway (i.e. the opinion radicalization pyramid) leads to extremist ideologies and beliefs and must be distinguished from the more dangerous behavioural pathway (i.e. the action radicalization pyramid), which leads to action (see McCauley & Moskalenko, 2017, p. 211). McCauley and Moskalenko underline the necessity for conceptualizing two distinct pathways by referring to the rather weak empirical relationship between extreme (or radical) attitudes and the corresponding behaviours, observing that ‘99% of those with radical ideas never act’ (p. 212). However, individuals holding radical attitudes may provide moral support, exert moral pressure, and offer (post-hoc) justifications to action-prone individuals, thereby playing an indirect role in supporting radical (and violent) behaviour. Moreover, the endorsement of radical attitudes, including the justification and support for radical behaviours, was found to be a significant risk factor for both radical intentions and behaviours in a recent meta-analysis of 57 studies involving mostly samples comprising (young) adults (Wolfowicz et al., 2020). Accordingly, considering factors which promote or prevent the development of radical attitudes is relevant for the prevention of radical behaviours. All told, preventing the development of radical attitudes even in those individuals who will never enact radical behaviours is key because such attitudes provide an ‘empowering climate’ for those individuals who are disposed towards radical behaviours.

1.1 Developing Extremist Attitudes: Risk and Protective Factors

Various individual, social, and societal/contextual risk and protective factors regarding radical/extremist attitudes and behaviours (perpetration) have been identified, mainly from studies involving (young) adults (see Beelmann, 2020). Meta-analytically confirmed risk and protective factors for developing radical or extreme attitudes were described recently by Wolfowicz et al. (2020). Risk factors include, for example:

  1. sociodemographic factors like male gender, a personal status relating to being an immigrant, national/religious identity, low educational attainment, or unemployment;
  2. negative personal experiences like discrimination or exposure to violence;
  3. person-related factors like personality disorders, anxiety, or low self-control;
  4. and social (societal) factors like deviant peers or low integration.

Protective factors include, for example:

  1. sociodemographic factors like socioeconomic status, education, or marital status;
  2. person-related factors like general trust, depression, school performance, or law abidance;
  3. and social factors like school bonding and out-group friendships (Wolfowicz et al., 2020).

The larger number of risk factors reported here reflects the relative dearth of research on protective factors (Beelmann, 2020; Lösel et al., 2018).

More recently, researchers have also begun to investigate risk and protective factors in adolescent populations (Lösel et al., 2018) and have particularly addressed the issue of vulnerability (Harpviken, 2020), the latter being understood as ‘a state of openness to attack, harm or damage’ (Borum, 2014, p. 291). In his social-developmental model of radicalization, Beelmann (2020) proposes that radicalization occurs in three consecutive stages spanning early childhood to middle adulthood, namely: Stage 1—ontogenetical developmental processes; Stage 2—proximal radicalization processes; and Stage 3—political or religious extremism.

In Stage 1 (encompassing the age range from early childhood to early adulthood), ontogenetic developmental processes include the interplay between risk and protective factors. Risk factors (individual, social, and societal) are causally linked to radical/extremist attitudes and behaviours, whereas protective factors (general and extremism-specific) can counteract the effect of a risk factor (Beelmann, 2020, p. 7). How this interaction plays out over time impacts the increase or decrease in an individual’s risk of radicalization, with a chronic imbalance in favour of risk factors leading to an increased probability that the subsequent proximal radicalization processes (i.e. Stage 2) will be triggered.

Stage 2 of Beelmann’s model encompasses the years from early adolescence to middle adulthood (age fourteen to about age thirty) and is more closely and directly linked to radicalization. It ‘represents the central preconditions for political or religious extremism to emerge’ (2020, p. 8) and covers the life phase during which the radicalization of most extremist offenders occurs. The four proximal processes of radicalization include identity problems, prejudice, political or religious ideologies, and antisocial attitudes and behaviours. These processes both influence and reinforce each other while at the same time exerting distinct influences on extremist attitudes and behaviour. The ontogenetic risk-protection background resulting from Stage 1 forms the backdrop against which current individual, social, or societal problems or events can trigger or reinforce the four proximal radicalization processes, as follows:

  1. Proximal radicalization process 1: Identity problems—refers to a thwarted need for appreciation as expressed in feelings of injustice or marginalization which themselves feed as motives into radicalization processes. Intense experiences of rejection (at the individual, social, or collective level) and discrimination as well as low or excessively high self-esteem are the most relevant risk factors contributing to radicalization via identity problems.
  2. Proximal radicalization process 2: Prejudice—refers to the social-cognitive conditions of radicalization and extremism. It includes ‘strong derogatory schemata regarding members of other social groups (e.g. ‘foreigners’, ‘refugees’, ‘unbelievers’)’ (p. 8). The resulting negative intergroup attitudes are linked to extremist offences by offering excuses and justifications as well as help condoning derogatory treatment and low sympathy towards victims of such offences. Both the social contexts establishing such structures and a lack of diversity experiences are among the core risk factors for prejudice processes.
  3. Proximal radicalization process 3: Acquisition of political or religious extremist ideologies—these ideologies can be more or less coherent but are used both to justify notions of inequality and to portray as legitimate the use of illegal and violent means to reach extremist goals. Often, these ideologies are created in the context of in-groups which are also engaged in constructing prejudices. Among core risk factors for adopting such ideologies are certain personality characteristics (e.g. authoritarianism), a societal context which condones these political or religious ideologies, and contact with groups that uphold them.
  4. Proximal radicalization process 4: Antisocial attitudes and behaviours—these represent the fourth proximal radicalization process and are characterized by a marked tendency to break age-related social rules and norms and engage in antisocial and delinquent behaviours. The strongest risk factors relate to an early onset of aggressive and antisocial behaviours (already at preschool age) as well as to an affiliation with delinquent peer groups in adolescence.

The interaction between the ontogenetic risk-protection history with the ‘current triggering social context, against the background of social intergroup processes’ (Beelmann, 2020, p. 9) determines the type and strength of the above proximal radicalization processes. In turn, the strength of these proximal radicalization processes is directly related to the risk of developing extremist attitudes and behaviours, i.e. Stage 3: the stronger these processes, the greater the risk. However, protective factors like having a non-deviant partner or stable employment may still buffer the effects from Stage 2. The interplay between the different factors at the various stages also implies that different individual trajectories towards radicalization are possible (Beelmann, 2020). This is also described in Borum’s (2014) worldview model or McCauley and Moskalenko’s two-pyramid model (e.g. 2017). The multicausality characterizing Beelmann’s (2020) model as well as its developmental perspective render it particularly valuable for attempts to explain how students may develop pre-extremist/fundamentalist political and/or religious attitudes, and how these might contribute—given unfavourable social and societal circumstances—to enhancing their risk of further radicalization. In sum, both ‘general’ radicalization research targeting mainly (young) adults and developmentally oriented research indicate that radicalization unfolds and intensifies over time and results from an interplay of both individual and social risk and protective factors. This underlines the need for early prevention.

1.2 Fundamentalist Religious Attitudes and Beliefs

Using Moghaddam’s (2005) staircase model as a starting point, we may locate fundamentalism, i.e. the endorsement of fundamentalist attitudes and beliefs, at the lowest step of a potential radicalization trajectory. Alternative definitions of fundamentalism sometimes equate fundamentalism with radicalism or terrorism (e.g. Koopmans, 2015). The definition used in this chapter refers specifically to attitudes; it describes fundamentalism as consisting of three interrelated attitudes, namely that ‘believers should return to the eternal and unchangeable rules laid down in the past; … [that] these rules allow only one interpretation that is binding for all believers; … [and that] religious rules should have priority over secular laws’ (Koopmans, 2015, p. 35). This kind of attitude may also be conceptualized as representing macro-religious beliefs according to the classification by Driskell et al. (2008) by including ‘broad, worldly concerns’ (p. 302).

As discussed in the previous sections, however, even the endorsement of extreme attitudes (one step above fundamentalism according to the staircase model) or radical attitudes (one step above extremism) does not automatically lead to radical or terrorist action but rather represents attitudinal propensities and potential psychological vulnerabilities that may become activated in given contexts and based on specific circumstances (e.g. Borum, 2014). According to McCauley and Moskalenko (2017), fundamentalist attitudes must also become linked with a given religious and/or political cause (e.g. the jihadist terrorist cause) to reach higher levels of the opinion pyramid, whereby the highest level represents a perceived moral obligation to take up violence in defence of ‘the cause’.

At this point, we can establish a link to Beelmann’s (2020) social-developmental model of radicalization as described above. Political or religious ideologies represent one out of the four social-developmental (proximal) processes that are triggered by actual conflicts (social, societal, or individual) and that are ‘marked by continuous intergroup processes’ (p. 1). The likelihood of developing extremist attitudes and behaviours is positively related to the intensity of these proximal processes. For religious or political ideologies, this means that the more pronounced they are, the greater the likelihood is that they contribute to developing extremist attitudes and behaviours in the context of particular triggering factors. Accordingly, the endorsement of fundamentalist religious or political attitudes may be understood as a potential openness towards adopting more extreme forms of related religious or political ideologies.

From an empirical perspective, behavioural radicalization represents a rather simple, specific, and relatively easy to measure construct, whereas cognitive radicalization according to the attitude pyramid (McCauley & Moskalenko, 2017) constitutes a less specific and more complex construct. Thus, cognitive radicalization is often assessed using a variety of more or less specific proxy variables, whereby measures of the support or the justification for radical violence and terrorism are among the most specific (Wolfowicz et al., 2020). Consequently, attitudes and beliefs as cognitive outcomes of radicalization can be assessed along a broad spectrum, involving more proximal (directly supporting and justifying radical violence and terrorism) or more distal indicators. Distal indicators do not represent radical or extremist attitudes per se but attitudes that have been consistently found to be related to radical and extremist attitudes and behaviours like, for example, fundamentalist religious attitudes (see the meta-analysis by Wolfowicz et al., 2020), which is the outcome that we are targeting in this study. Taken together, involving distal indicators like pre-extremist attitudes helps to assess individuals’ openness towards adopting more extreme ideologies.

2 The Role of Socialization and Education at School in Promoting or Counteracting Radicalization

The contribution of socialization and education at school to promoting or preventing radicalization and extremism is not yet clear (e.g. Pels & de Ruyter, 2012; Vergani et al., 2020). Some research identifies lower levels of education as a push factor, indicating that, for example, lower levels of education are associated with strongly dichotomous worldviews and identities that are themselves predictive of radicalization (Vergani et al., 2020). The meta-analysis by Wolfowicz et al. (2020) indicates that higher levels of education represent a protective factor against developing both radical attitudes and radical intentions, although the effect sizes found were small. In the systematic review by Lösel et al. (2018), attending higher education and good levels of achievement in school were also identified as protective factors against extremism and radicalization, with the former playing an important role regarding religious/ethnic ideology. Therefore, education in schools may help to foster protective factors against radicalization. In addition, higher levels of civic knowledge may foster students’ ability to understand other groups’ points of view, and fostering social relationships may promote affective bonds between students of different groups, thereby increasing tolerance (Ziemes & Abs, 2020).

Generally it seems that until recently, radicalization research has only marginally considered the role of children’s and adolescents’ socialization and educational environments (Pels & de Ruyter, 2012). However, as discussed earlier, radicalization processes start at school age (Beelmann, 2020). Youngsters are particularly vulnerable to endorsing radical beliefs during their adolescent years, mainly because of the developmental tasks they are facing, such as ‘developing a personal, social, and political identity, redefining bonds and relations and forming new relationships’ (Pels & de Ruyter, 2012, p. 313). Therefore, in order to better understand radicalization processes, it is important to consider not only the role of student’s educational level or success, but also the quality of relationships which students form with core socialization agents at school, i.e. with teachers and peers.

2.1 The Quality of Social Relationships in School and Student Outcomes

The quality of social relationships at school is meaningfully related to core academic, social, and health outcomes in students. The quality of the student–teacher relationship has been linked to students’ social, emotional, behavioural, and academic outcomes (e.g. Farmer et al., 2011; see also the review by McGrath & Van Bergen, 2015). Positive student–teacher relationships are associated with outcomes like an enhanced sense of school belonging (Wong et al., 2019), academic achievement (Hattie, 2009), peer liking (Hendrickx et al., 2016), and prosocial behaviour (Luckner & Pianta, 2011). Moreover, they have been found to prevent peer aggression, specifically bullying and victimization (e.g. Konishi et al., 2010). In addition to their predictive function, positive student–teacher relationships have been identified as a protective factor for students in general and particularly for those students at risk of both socioemotional and academic difficulties (McGrath & Van Bergen, 2015; Sabol & Pianta, 2012). A positive relationship between teachers and student may also buffer adverse effects of ethnic discrimination by peers. A recent study by Civitillo et al. (2021) found that a high quality of the student-teacher relationship attenuated the negative association between perceived personal and group discrimination and both global self-esteem and emotional school engagement.

Regarding the quality of student–student or peer relationships, research has consistently indicated that positive relationships are important for students’ cognitive, academic, motivational, emotional, and social development (e.g. Bukowski, 2001; Deci & Ryan, 2008; Hay et al., 2004), and that they are positively related both to trust in political institutions (Ziemes et al., 2020) and to tolerance (Ziemes & Abs, 2020). Additionally, positive student–student relationships have been found to prevent peer aggression, specifically bullying and victimization (e.g. Konishi et al., 2010).

Bullying (perpetration) and victimization (being the target of bullying) are indicators of dysfunctional, negative peer relations (Lenci & Matuga, 2010). Bullying is characterized by a certain repetitiveness and an imbalance of power between bully and victim (e.g. Olweus, 2003) and manifests a genuine lack of respect (see Gutzwiller-Helfenfinger & Ziemes, 2017). As constructs of ‘otherness’ lie at the heart of bullies’ and bystanders’ justifications for their behaviour, they use all possible facets of diversity to justify and ‘legitimize’ their systematic aggression against others as well as the discrimination and marginalization of others. Student characteristics related to migration, ethnicity, nationality, language, and culture are one potential source of diversity (see Oliveira et al., 2015). A growing body of research has investigated whether systematic relationships exist between these sources of diversity and bullying. Result patterns are mixed and complex. Some studies indicate that there are no differences in the prevalence of bullying and victimization between ethnic minority and white majority children (e.g. Durkin et al., 2012), while other studies indicate that ‘first generation immigrant adolescents’ are more often victimized by peers than ‘third generation and native counterparts’ (see the meta-analysis by Pottie et al., 2015). The grave psychosocial, health, and academic consequences of experiencing victimization at school have also been extensively longitudinally documented during the last three decades (e.g. the meta-analysis by Moore et al., 2017).

Finally, the generalized quality of social relationships at school (often conceptualized as school climate) has been identified as one essential factor determining core student outcome variables like, for example, academic achievement, school absenteeism, aggressive behaviour, or psychosocial health and wellbeing (e.g. Durlak et al., 2011; Wang et al., 2016). Positive social relationships at school fulfil students’ basic need for social belonging, i.e. to feel connected to others, to be accepted, respected, and appreciated, as described by self-determination theory (e.g. Ryan & Deci, 2001).

2.2 Relationship Experiences at School and Radicalization

We may assume that negative relationship experiences at school can contribute to radicalization processes, whereas positive social relationships at school and a feeling of school connectedness or school bonding may represent factors preventing or reducing extremism (Roffey & Boyle, 2018; Lösel et al., 2018; Wolfowicz et al., 2020). Regarding the former, negative experiences with peers and relevant adults (e.g. bullying, social exclusion, discrimination) have been identified as one level of strain that renders adolescents vulnerable to extremism (see the review by Harpviken, 2020). These experiences of violence and abuse seem to operate both at the level of attitudes and behaviours: on the one hand, they heighten the risk that individuals endorse extremist attitudes; on the other hand, they increase the risk that individuals become involved in violent extremism (Knapton, 2014; Knight et al., 2017). However, there seems to be a lack of studies which specifically target the role that the quality of teacher–student and student–student relationships plays in an individual’s radicalization.

Beelmann’s (2020) conceptualization of political or religious extremism ‘as an expression of deviant social development’ (p. 5) offers a more integrated view of the role which social relationships in general play in radicalization. Based on his model as described above, we may hypothesize that negative social relationships at school operate at different stages of the radicalization process. Regarding ontogenetic developmental processes, negative social relationships at school (e.g. bullying, victimization, social exclusion, discrimination) may act as individual social risk factors. For example, they may exacerbate individuals’ experiences of social exclusion and low acceptance outside of the school context, contributing to a generalized experience of being isolated and not being accepted. With respect to proximal radicalization processes, negative social relationships at school may act as trigger conditions or accelerators. For example, they may contribute to the development of identity problems by thwarting individuals’ need for appreciation, making them feel marginalized and treated unjustly.

School-based experiences of victimization, discrimination, marginalization, and rejection all have one factor in common: they indicate to individuals that they do not belong to the school and classroom community. Accordingly, individuals’ basic need to belong is thwarted (see Roffey & Boyle, 2018), rendering them more vulnerable to extremist attitudes and behaviours (Beelmann, 2020). Conversely, positive relationship experiences at school may act as a protective factor by making individuals feel welcome and accepted. However, systematic research is scarce, particularly regarding the relationship between teachers and students, for which no studies seem to exist. In sum, school represents a potentially relevant context for radicalization, regarding both the academic and the social context. Whether students’ need to belong is fulfilled or thwarted may thus impact their potential openness to extremism.

3 The Present Study

Radicalization represents a developmental process over time, with proximal radicalization processes spanning from age fourteen (early adolescence) to about age thirty (Beelmann, 2020, p. 8). Therefore, radicalization processes that are potentially proximal and more intensified start to play out during a critical phase. In early adolescence, students attend secondary school and often must adapt to a new school environment. They face challenges in their individual, social, and academic development. The developmental task of forming a personal, social, and political identity renders them especially vulnerable to radical beliefs (Pels & de Ruyter, 2012). In other words, potential proximal radicalization processes coincide with a developmental phase during which students are particularly vulnerable to such processes.

Against this background, we explored the link between the quality of social relationships at school and pre-extremist attitudes in multi-ethnic classrooms. We pursued the following research question: Does the quality of social relationships at school predict the endorsement of pre-extremist attitudes in multi-ethnic classrooms? More specifically, we investigated whether the quality of the student–teacher and student–student relationship negatively and victimization experiences positively predict pre-extremist attitudes. To investigate the potential relationships at the population level, we decided to use a representative, normative (i.e. non-clinical) sample of secondary school students. To this end, we accessed the German data of the 2016 International Civic and Citizenship Education Study (ICCS, 2016). Using ICCS data had the additional advantage that the study focuses on students with an average age of fourteen, thereby capturing the age at which proximal radicalization processes become relevant according to Beelmann’s (2020) social-developmental model of radicalization.

As core sociodemographic variables have been shown to be related to radical attitudes (some as risk and some as protective factors; see Wolfowicz et al., 2020), we included gender, age, socioeconomic status, and immigration background as additional potential predictors. Another potentially relevant area in students’ lives refers to religion. Research suggests that whereas religious practice and adherence seem to play only a marginal role as a risk factor for developing radical attitudes, religious identity seems to have a much stronger influence (e.g. Koopmans, 2015; see Wolfowicz et al., 2020). Accordingly, we included both the religion with which students identified and their religious practice as additional potential predictors.

Furthermore, positive attitudes towards society and political values such as democracy have been identified as an extremism-specific protective factor (Beelmann, 2020, p. 6). However, there seems to be little comprehensive research on whether and to what extent political education (e.g. citizenship education) is effective in preventing the development of political or religious extremist ideologies (Beelmann, 2020). To explore a potential relationship between citizenship education and the endorsement of pre-extremist attitudes, we therefore included students’ civic knowledge as a predictor in our analyses.

4 Method

Our analyses use the German data from ICCS 2016. The study was conducted by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) and aimed to assess how students across the world are being prepared to become citizens (Schulz et al., 2017). Prior studies were conducted in 1999 and 2009. Reports and data sets for all study cycles are accessible via the IEA homepage. International results as well as information on the instruments and scales of the 2016 study have been published (Schulz et al., 2018). In Germany, the federal state of North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW) participated in the ICCS 2016 study (Abs & Hahn-Laudenberg, 2017).

4.1 Sample

To account for the multilayered educational system and an uneven distribution of students with an immigration background in NRW, a stratified, multistage randomized cluster sample was drawn. Sampling strata were school type and proportion of students with immigration backgrounds (more versus less than 30%). The sample consisted of 1,451 eighth-grade students from 59 secondary schools. Students’ mean age was 14.29 (range: 12.08 to 16.75). 52% of students were girls, and about 40% had an immigration background. Students were categorized as having an immigration background if they themselves or one of their parents were born outside of Germany. Distribution of students across school types was as follows: 10.27% attended Hauptschule (lowest academic track), 18.33% Realschule (middle academic track), 15.92% Gesamtschule (comprehensive school), and 55.48% attended Gymnasium (highest academic track). Written consent from a parent or guardian was obtained for all students of the sample. Detailed information on the German sample can be found in Ziemes et al. (2017).

4.2 Measures and Procedure

Data was collected from students, teachers, and headteachers. Our present study focuses on student data only, which was collected using paper-and-pencil questionnaires. Data collection took place in students’ regular classrooms and lasted about 135 minutes, with breaks between individual parts of the survey. In the first part, students completed a civic knowledge test covering the areas of civic society and systems, civic principles, civic participation, and civic identities (Schulz et al., 2016). The second part consisted of an international student questionnaire assessing affective-behavioural and contextual factors (including students’ experiences of social relationships at school) as well as sociodemographic variables. In the third part, students’ attitudes toward civic society and systems in the European context were assessed through the European student questionnaire. Data from the third part is not addressed in our study.

For all scales, the IEA provided authors with values based on weighted likelihood estimations (WLE) of partial credit models (Schulz et al., 2018). In accordance with data preparation in the 2009 cycle, these scales were calibrated to have an international mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10 (social relationship scales) and an international mean of 500 and a standard deviation of 100 (civic knowledge scale; see Schulz et al., 2018). Internal consistencies reported for all scales are based on Cronbach’s alpha. All variables and scales used stem from the ICCS 2016 study.

4.2.1 Sociodemographic Variables

Gender was assessed with one question with a dichotomous answer choice (0 = boy; 1 = girl). The indicator for socioeconomic status (SES) as provided by IEA is a nationally z-standardized indicator which includes the number of books at home, parental occupation, and education.

Religion was assessed with a single choice question which asked students ‘What is your religion?’. The answer choices were ‘no religion’ (N = 182); ‘Christianity’ (N = 973); ‘Islam’ (N = 195); ‘Judaism’ (N = 5); and ‘other religion’ (N = 51). Three dichotomous indicators were created for ‘no religion’, ‘Christianity’ and ‘Islam’, whereby students self-identifying with these choices were assigned 1 and all others were assigned 0.

Attendance at religious services was assessed with one question where students could indicate if they attended religious services. Answer options were ‘never’ (N = 291), ‘less than once a year’ (N = 137), ‘at least once a year’ (N = 437), ‘at least once a month’ (N = 321), or ‘at least once a week’ (N = 221). 35 students who indicated ‘no religion’ still reported that they attended religious services once a year or more often.

4.2.2 Civic Knowledge

Civic knowledge was designed as a competence measure using both multiple choice and open-ended tasks. Based on Rasch analyses, five plausible values were calculated for each student and introduced in the calculations (Schulz et al., 2017).

4.2.3 Quality of Students’ Social Relationships at School

The quality of student–teacher relationships at school was assessed using the students’ perspective. Three items measured students’ assessment of their own relationships with teachers (e.g. ‘Most of my teachers treat me fairly’). Two items assessed students’ evaluation of the quality of the relationship between teachers and the other students (e.g. ‘Students get along well with most teachers’). All items had a 4-point Likert-type response scale ranging from 1 (‘strongly agree’) to 4 (‘strongly disagree’). Internal consistency was .80.

The quality of student–student relationships at school was also assessed using the students’ perspective. Two items described the way students treat each other (e.g. ‘Most students at my school treat each other with respect’). One item tapped into students’ fear of being bullied by other students (this item was reversed for analyses). All items had a 4-point Likert-type response scale ranging from 1 (‘strongly agree’) to 4 (‘strongly disagree’). Internal consistency was .74.

Students’ self-reported victimization at school measured the frequency of self-reported victimization by students within the past three months. The six items included direct, indirect, verbal, physical and cyber-victimization (e.g. ‘A student said things about you to make others laugh’). The 4-point Likert-type response scale ranged from 1 (‘not at all’) to 4 (‘five times or more’). Internal consistency was .74. For further details, please see Schulz et al. (2018, p. 163).

4.2.4 Pre-Extremist Attitudes

Students’ pre-extremist attitudes were assessed as part of a broader scale on students’ attitudes on religion in society. Items were answered on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = ‘strongly agree’ to 4 = ‘strongly disagree’). Three items of the broader scale ascribe religion a dominant role in social and political life (e.g. ‘Rules of life based on religion are more important than civil laws’). For the purposes of our study, these items were identified as representing a pre-extremist attitude. The items were combined to form a latent scale which we call hegemony of religion. Internal consistency was .87. Item wording and dichotomous agreement rates for students with and without religion are listed in Table 3.1, as are factor loadings for the overall sample. Agreement rates indicate that students who self-identified with a religion were more likely to welcome a strong influence of religion on society. This effect was particularly pronounced for Muslim students as compared to Christian students.

Table 3.1
Items and aggreement rates for hegemony of religion
Item wording No religion Muslim students Christian students Factor loading
% SE % SE % SE
Religion is more important to me than what is happening in national politics. 5 1.68 89 3.04 29 1.37 .825
Religious leaders should have more power in society. 4 1.83 61 4.35 18 1.36 .847
Rules of life based on religion are more important than civil laws. 5 1.22 64 6.74 17 1.43 .835

Note: Percentages indicate the percentage of students choosing the ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’ answer options.

4.3 Results

Weak to moderate bivariate associations were found between the main study variables (Table 3.2). Hegemony of religion was negatively associated with SES and civic knowledge. No significant correlations were found for indicators of the quality of social relationships, i.e. student–teacher relationship, student–student relationship, and victimization. Therefore, these variables were not included in multivariate analyses.

Table 3.2

Bivariate relationships between main study variables

Hegemony of religion SES Civic knowledge Student–teacher relationship Student–student relationship
SES −.228***
Civic knowledge −.392* .432*
Student–teacher relationship .021 .024 .062
Student–student relationship −.001 .130*** .055 .467***
Victimization −.041 −.024 −.046 −.248*** −.302***
* ** ***

Mplus 8.2 was used to predict the latent variable hegemony of religion. The analyses controlled for the clustered nature of the data (type = complex) and employed weights. Model 0 introduced gender, SES, and immigration background. Students with a lower SES and an immigration background were more likely to support a strong role of religion. Model 1 introduced civic knowledge, which shows a negative association with hegemony of religion.

Model 2 introduced students’ religion and their attendance at religious services. Only self-identification as Christians or Muslims was used because the other groups were too small. Both religious affiliations predicted support for hegemony of religion. Furthermore, the frequency of attendance at religious services was a much stronger predictor of hegemony of religion than self-identified religion.

Model 3 introduced the interaction of self-identified religion (Muslim or Christian) and attendance at religious services. Interactions of manifest variables in Mplus were included by defining a variable representing the product of the interacting variables and introducing this interaction term into the regression. Results yielded the following pattern (see Table 3.3). There was a main effect for Muslim religion; Muslims were more likely to support hegemony of religion than non-Muslims (i.e. Christians). Another main effect was found for frequency of attending religious services. The more often students attended religious services, the more likely they were to support hegemony of religion. Moreover, there was a significant negative interaction for being a Muslim and attending religious services. This indicates that Muslims attending religious services were less likely to support the hegemony of religion.

Table 3.3

Regression models: standardized coefficients for hegemony of religion

Variables Model 0 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Girl .036 .054 −.005 −.008
SES −.113*** −.015 −.060 −.064*
IBG .340*** .311*** .165*** .160***
Civic knowledge −.246*** −.184*** −.190***
Muslim .346*** .544***
Christian .120*** .132***
Religious service .439*** .516***
Muslim × service −.263*
Christ × service −.058
.148 .197 .505 .512
N 1,382 1,382 1,360 1,360

5 Discussion

Our results indicate that a particular constellation of and interplay (as interactions) between factors best predicts hegemony of religion, i.e. our measure of pre-extremist attitudes. Looking at a normative, representative sample of 14-year-old German secondary school students, our findings confirm results from earlier research, including risk and protective factors for radical/extremist attitudes.

First and foremost, students who identified with a religion indicated that their religious rules were more important than the rules of the state. This was true for both of the major religions (Islam and Christianity) with which students in the sample identified. Further, results differed according to the specific religion chosen; specifically, Muslim students showed a higher degree of agreement with all three items of the hegemony of religion scale. Finally, students who identified with a religion tended to propose a stronger role for religious leaders in political affairs. We cannot assume that all those students hold extremist views which are dangerous for democratic societies; however, according to the models of radicalization we reviewed (Beelmann, 2020; McCauley & Moskalenko, 2017; Moghaddam, 2005), these students may be at greater risk of developing those views given further unfavourable circumstances. That said, we need to consider the relative contribution of identification with a religion in the context of our multivariate analyses.

Interestingly, indicators of students’ relationship quality at school were not related to their endorsement of pre-extremist attitudes. Due to their non-significance, they were excluded from multivariate analyses. The strongest association with hegemony of religion was found for students’ self-reported victimization. Those students who reported more victimization also showed a higher endorsement of beliefs supporting hegemony of religion, confirming earlier research (Knapton, 2014; Knight et al., 2017; see also Beelmann, 2020).

There are several possible explanations for the weak results regarding the impact of relationships as found in our study. First, we included a normative sample of 14-year-old students attending regular German secondary schools. We may assume that relationships might have a stronger impact in a sample including at-risk or already radicalized students. As even serious cases of political/religious extremism have very low base rates (Lösel et al., 2020), the variance regarding hegemony of religion in our sample might be too small. Second, our analyses focus on the individual level and do not include shared perceptions of the social climate. This is partly because all relationship variables were assessed at a general level without identifying the respective relationship partners, yet social relationships play out in a given context involving specific relationship partners. Indeed, the quality of relationships has been shown to vary across classrooms and schools, for example in the context of bullying research (Gini et al., 2015). Thus, future research will need to use measurement approaches that allow for the representation of this nestedness and include relationship (and climate) data from multiple informants at different levels (individual, classroom, and school).

Our multivariate analyses indicated that with respect to sociodemographic variables, neither students’ gender nor their socioeconomic status were related to the endorsement of beliefs supporting hegemony of religion, whereas an immigration background was related to a stronger support for hegemony of religion. The latter finding is in line with meta-analytic findings reported by Wolfowicz et al. (2020), who found that being an immigrant was a risk factor for radical attitudes (see also Bhui et al., 2012), albeit with a small effect size. Wolfowicz et al. (2020) also found that being male was a (weak) risk factor, and a higher socioeconomic status was a (weak) protective factor for radical attitudes. However, we must interpret our findings (confirmatory and other) with caution as our study assessed pre-extremist attitudes in a normative sample, while the studies on radical attitudes that were included in the meta-analysis by Wolfowicz et al. (2020) used measures assessing the justification or support for radical behaviours. That notwithstanding, it is important to relate our findings to this meta-analysis because the latter also included adolescent samples and because it was undertaken with a high degree of scientific rigour, including only studies involving either a normative control group or a control group of non-violent radicals.

Civic knowledge proved to be a significant negative predictor of hegemony of religion (Model 1), indicating that students with a higher level of civic knowledge were less likely to endorse beliefs supporting the hegemony of religion. As it remained a significant negative predictor in the subsequent models, we conclude that civic knowledge can be seen as a potentially important protective factor against embracing hegemony of religion. Fostering civic knowledge may be one avenue schools can take to support students in linking their religious identity with democratic attitudes. This interpretation finds some support in the meta-analytic finding by Wolfowicz et al. (2020) that states that anti-democratic values are a risk factor for developing radical attitudes.

We also found that Christians, Muslims, and students who frequently attended religious services were more likely to embrace hegemony of religion. As religious identity and attendance at religious services were also included as interaction terms in Model 3, we will not interpret these main effects here. Furthermore, accounting for these religion-related factors (Model 2) also decreased the predictive power of immigration background. This is in line with previous research showing that the experience of societal rejection is a risk factor for radicalization (e.g. Roffey & Boyle, 2018). Having an immigration background or endorsing a socially less appreciated religion may create feelings of isolation in students. The question whether migration is endangering the political culture of democratic societies is part of an ongoing debate (e.g. Pickel & Pickel, 2018). However, it would be too simplistic to portray immigration as a driving force for the development of pre-extremist attitudes. Our regression models show that the effect of immigrant background decreases continuously with every analytic step. Immigrant background is therefore better perceived as a proximal indicator covering various influences that often occur in the aftermath of immigration, like, for example, experiences of discrimination and a strong emphasis on group identities within the political discourse (Abs, 2021).

Finally, with regard to the interaction effects of religious identity and attendance at religious services, we found that Muslim students attending religious services were less likely to embrace hegemony of religion. This confirms findings reported in the reviews by Lösel et al. (2018; 2020) which showed that Muslims’ intense religious practice acted as a protective factor against religious extremism and radicalization. Indeed, Wolfowicz et al. (2020) also found that religious practice and adherence had very small effects on radicalization, whereas religious group identity and religious fundamentalism had larger effects. However, as religious group identity was inextricably linked with national identity in the studies which the authors included in their meta-analysis, and as no interaction effects with religious practice were considered, the relative contribution of religious identity per se cannot be surmised.

Our own findings using pre-extremist attitudes as an outcome in a normative sample of German 14-year-olds suggest that identifying as a Muslim or Christian and practising that religion cannot explain potential openness to radicalization. Still, the main effects for both self-identifying as Muslim and attendance at religious services in Model 2 retained their substantial respective size in Model 3 despite the inclusion of the interaction terms, marking them as potential risk factors. Regarding self-identification as Muslim, a recent study by Goede et al. (2019) including 6,863 German secondary school students (mean age = 14.7) found that 1.5% of Muslim students endorsed extremist/Islamist attitudes and had displayed at least one instance of religiously motivated deviant behaviour. The authors classified these students as at risk for further radicalization. However, unlike in our study, religious practice (including attending religious services) was not identified as a risk factor for extremist attitudes (right-wing, left-wing, Islamist) in the sample as a whole (Goede et al., 2019). Other research (involving mainly adults) also suggests that the effect of religious identity on radicalization by far exceeds that of religious practice (Aly & Striegher, 2012; Wolfowicz et al., 2020; see also the discussion by Koopmans, 2015). As our study used a restricted measurement of religious practice, namely the frequency of attending religious services, further research will need to utilize a broader assessment that includes additional aspects like praying at home, attending religious celebrations, or discussing religious issues (see Goede et al., 2019).

5.1 Limitations

Our study has several limitations. First, we did not study the radicalization process per se but investigated potential predictors of pre-extremist religious attitudes at an age which marks the beginning of the age window during which radicalization occurs (Beelmann, 2020; Borum, 2014). Due to the cross-sectional nature of our study, it is not possible to link our findings to more pronounced extremist attitudes and behaviours. Future longitudinal research will be necessary to explore whether pre-extremist attitudes can contribute to predicting whether extremist attitudes and behaviours will occur.

Second, as already mentioned, our assessment of the quality of social relationships at school focused on the individual level and did not include aggregate measures. This may have blurred potential effects on one of those levels. Future research using measurement approaches that allow for the representation of this nestedness and that include relationship (and climate) data from multiple informants at different levels (individual, classroom, and school) will offer a promising way for exploring the relative contribution of the quality of relationships to young people’s endorsement of pre-extremist attitudes. Furthermore, such research might also explore potential mediation or moderation effects of relationship quality and thus account for possible indirect effects.

Third, our rather restricted assessment of pre-extremist attitudes involving only three items does not allow for a fuller representation of such attitudes. Future research might include factors like openness to extremist attitudes or admiration for people endorsing fundamentalist views in order to characterize pre-extremist attitudes more clearly. Capturing the early stages of the radicalization process (Beelmann, 2020) calls for measurements that are adapted to these stages and do not refer to already fully-fledged extremist attitudes and behaviours.

5.2 Practical Relevance and Outlook

Our findings suggest that strategies for the early prevention of (violent) extremism might include addressing pre-extremist attitudes, particularly regarding the role of religion in society. This is relevant for at least two reasons: first, the radicalization process unfolds and intensifies over time (Beelmann, 2020; McCauley & Moskalenko, 2017; Moghaddam, 2005); and second, even if most individuals holding extreme/radical beliefs will never translate them into (terrorist) action, they still indirectly support radical and potentially violent behaviour, for example by offering (post-hoc) justifications to action-prone individuals (McCauley & Moskalenko, 2017).

Educational efforts at school are often designed to help identify young people at risk of radicalization, with a clear security policy focus as, for example, in the context of the Prevent strategy in the United Kingdom (e.g. Mattson et al., 2016; Bryan, this volume). Systematic, evidence-based approaches to prevention seem to be scarce, partly because of a dearth of sound empirical research (Lösel et al., 2018). In their interdisciplinary review of the literature on the prevention of violent extremism, Stephens et al. (2021) identified four core themes that might inform a common framework for prevention: first, building resilience, for example by fostering values related to citizenship and human rights; second, promoting adolescents’ identity search and their need to belong, for example by creating space to explore identities and by strengthening and validating identities; third, promoting dialogue and action, for example by creating safe spaces for the exploration of students’ views without condemnation; and fourth, creating engaged and resilient (school) communities, for example by offering opportunities for social bonding.

If we map these themes onto Beelmann’s (2020) model of the radicalization process, we see that they can be directly related to proximal radicalization processes, particularly to issues of identity problems, prejudice, and political and religious ideologies. In addition, as the model also considers social and societal influences, it aligns well with Stephens et al.’s (2021) systemic perspective on the promotion of resilience against radicalization. Addressing pre-extremist attitudes in this context might particularly relate to promoting young people’s identity search and dialogue. Given early adolescents’ vulnerability to radical beliefs, our findings that pre-extremist attitudes can be found as early as age fourteen help to make a case for early prevention.

Such early prevention needs to include civic and citizenship education. State school systems were developed within the emerging nation states of the 19th century. They were installed to serve a homogeneous citizenry and to support the idea of a homogenous nation state. But nowadays, it appears that schools must serve ever more heterogeneous societies, with teachers and students being characterized by multilayered or hybrid identities (Abs, 2021). To be a driver for integration, schools need to develop further their potential for integration. Our findings underline the importance of civic knowledge for preventing pre-extremist attitudes that focus on religion. Civic knowledge seems to be an important educational force when it comes to preparing students for developing cohesive perspectives for societies as a whole.

Furthermore, both religious education and citizenship education frequently proceed in our schools without referring to each other (Bacia & Abs, 2017). Our analysis highlights how important it is for both religious and citizenship education to deal with the place of religion in the democratic state (Hahn-Laudenberg & Abs, 2019).

References

  • Abs, H. J. (2021). Options for developing European strategies on citizenship education. European Educational Research Journal, 20(3), 329347. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904121994418

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Abs, H. J., & Hahn-Laudenberg, K. (Eds.). (2017). Das politische Mindset von 14-Jährigen. Ergebnisse der International Civic and Citizenship Education Study 2016 [The political mindset of 14-year-olds. Results of the International Civic and Citizenship Education Study 2016]. Waxmann.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Aly, A., & Striegher, J.-L. (2012). Examining the role of religion in radicalization to violent Islamist extremism Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 35(12), 849862. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bacia, E., & Abs, H. J. (2017). Politische und zivilgesellschaftliche Bildung in Kernlehrplänen [Civic and citizenship education in core curricula]. In H. J. Abs & K. Hahn-Laudenberg (Eds.), Das politische Mindset von 14-Jährigen. Ergebnisse der International Civic and Citizenship Education Study 2016 (pp. 2746). Waxmann.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Beelmann, A. (2020). A social-developmental model of radicalization: A systematic integration of existing theories and empirical research. International Journal of Conflict and Violence (IJCV), 14(1), 114. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bhui, K. S., Hicks, M. H., Lashley, M., & Jones, E. (2012). A public health approach to understanding and preventing violent radicalization. BMC Medicine, 10(1), 16. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Borum, R. (2011). Radicalization into violent extremism I: A review of social science theories. Journal of Strategic Security, 4(4), 736. https://doi.org/10.5038/1944-0472.4.4.1

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Borum, R. (2014). Psychological vulnerabilities and propensities for involvement in violent extremism. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 32(3), 286305. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bukowski, W. M. (2001). Friendship and the worlds of childhood. In D. W. Nangle & C. A. Erdley (Eds.), The role of friendship in psychological adjustment (pp. 93105). Jossey-Bass.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Civitillo, S., Göbel, K., Preusche, Z., & Jugert, P. (2021). Disentangling the effects of perceived personal and group ethnic discrimination among secondary school students: The protective role of teacher–student relationship quality and school climate. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2021 (177), 7799. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Doosje, B., Moghaddam, F. M., Kruglanski, A. W., de Wolf, A., Mann, L., & Feddes, A. R. (2016). Terrorism, radicalization and de-radicalization. Current Opinion in Psychology, 11, 7984. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne, 49(3), 182185. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Driskell, R., Embry, E., & Lyon, L. (2008). Faith and politics: The influence of religious beliefs on political participation. Social Science Quarterly, 89(2), 294314. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Durkin, K., Hunter, S., Levin, K. A., Bergin, D., Heim, D., & Howe, C. (2012). Discriminatory peer aggression among children as a function of minority status and group proportion in school context. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42(2), 243251. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82(1), 405432. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Farmer, T. W., McAuliffe Lines, M., & Hamm, J. V. (2011). Revealing the invisible hand: The role of teachers in children’s peer experiences. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 32(5), 247256. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ghosh, R., Chan, W. A., Manuel, A., & Dilimulati, M. (2017). Can education counter violent religious extremism? Canadian Foreign Policy Journal, 23(2), 117133. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gini, G., Pozzoli, T., & Bussey, K. (2015). The role of individual and collective moral disengagement in peer aggression and bystanding: A multilevel analysis. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 43(3), 441452. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Goede, L.-R., Schröder, C. P., & Lehmann, L. (2019). Perspektiven von Jugendlichen. Ergebnisse einer Befragung zu den Themen Politik, Religion und Gemeinschaft im Rahmen des Projektes ‘Radikalisierung im digitalen Zeitalter’. KFN-Forschungsbericht Nr. 151 [Adolescents’ perspectives. Results from a survey on politics, religion, and community in the project ‘radicalization in the digital age’]. KFN.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gutzwiller-Helfenfinger, E., & Ziemes, J. (2017). Qualität der schulischen Sozialbeziehungen [Quality of social relationships at school]. In H. J. Abs & K. Hahn-Laudenberg (Eds.), Das politische Mindset von 14-Jährigen. Ergebnisse der International Civic and Citizenship Education Study 2016 (pp. 279305). Waxmann.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hahn-Laudenberg, K., & Abs, H. J. (2019). Religion in research on citizenship education. In D. Käbisch (Eds.), Religion and educational research. National traditions and transnational perspectives (pp. 135150). Waxmann.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Harpviken, A. N. (2020). Psychological vulnerabilities and extremism among Western youth: A literature review. Adolescent Research Review, 5(1), 126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40894-019-00108-y

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hattie, J. A. C. (2009). Visible learning. A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement (Reprinted). Routledge.

  • Hay, D. F., Payne, A., & Chadwick, A. (2004). Peer relations in childhood. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45(1), 84108. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hendrickx, M. M. H. G., Mainhard, M. T., Boor-Klip, H. J., Cillessen, A. H. M., & Brekelmans, M. (2016). Social dynamics in the classroom: Teacher support and conflict and the peer ecology. Teaching and Teacher Education, 53, 3040. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Knapton, H. M. (2014). The recruitment and radicalisation of Western citizens: Does ostracism have a role in homegrown terrorism? Journal of European Psychology Students, 5(1), 3848. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Knight, S., Keatley, D., & Woodward, K. (2019). Comparing the different behavioral outcomes of extremism: A comparison of violent and non-violent extremists, acting alone or as part of a group. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 122. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Knight, S., Woodward, K., & Lancaster, G. L. J. (2017). Violent versus nonviolent actors: An empirical study of different types of extremism. Journal of Threat Assessment and Management, 4(4), 230248. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Konishi, C., Hymel, S., Zumbo, B. D., & Li, Z. (2010). Do school bullying and student—teacher relationships matter for academic achievement? A multilevel analysis. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 25(1), 1939. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Koopmans, R. (2015). Religious fundamentalism and hostility against out-groups: A comparison of Muslims and Christians in Western Europe. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 41(1), 3357. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lenci, M., & Matuga, J. (2010). The lifetime bully: Investigating the relationship between adolescent bullying and depression in early adulthood. Journal of School Counseling, 8(7), 77.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lösel, F., Bender, D., Jugl, I., & King, S. (2020). Resilience against political and religious extremism, radicalization, and related violence: A systematic review of studies on protective factors. In D. Weisburd, E. U. Savona, B. Hasisi, & F. Calderoni (Eds.), Understanding recruitment to organized crime and terrorism (pp. 5584). Springer International Publishing.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lösel, F., King, S., Bender, D., & Jugl, I. (2018). Protective factors against extremism and violent radicalization: A systematic review of research. International Journal of Developmental Science, 12, 89102. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Luckner, A. E., & Pianta, R. C. (2011). Teacher–student interactions in fifth grade classrooms: Relations with children’s peer behavior. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 32(5), 257266. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Mattsson, C., Hammarén, N., & Odenbring, Y. (2016). Youth ‘at risk’: A critical discourse analysis of the European Commission’s Radicalisation Awareness Network Collection of approaches and practices used in education. Power and Education, 8(3), 251265. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • McCauley, C., & Moskalenko, S. (2017). Understanding political radicalization: The two-pyramids model. American Psychologist, 72(3), 205216. doi:

  • McGrath, K. F., & van Bergen, P. (2015). Who, when, why and to what end? Students at risk of negative student–teacher relationships and their outcomes. Educational Research Review, 14, 117. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Moghaddam, F. M. (2005). The staircase to terrorism: A psychological exploration. American Psychologist, 60(2), 161169. doi:

  • Moore, S. E., Norman, R. E., Suetani, S., Thomas, H. J., Sly, P. D., & Scott, J. G. (2017). Consequences of bullying victimization in childhood and adolescence: A systematic review and meta-analysis. World Journal of Psychiatry, 7(1), 6076. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Nivette, A., Eisner, M., & Ribeaud, D. (2017). Developmental predictors of violent extremist attitudes. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 54(6), 755790. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Oliveira, W. A. d., Silva, M. A. I., Mello, F. C. M.d., Porto, D. L., Yoshinaga, A. C. M., & Malta, D. C. (2015). The causes of bullying: Results from the National Survey of School Health (PeNSE). Revista Latino-americana de Enfermagem, 23(2), 275282.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Blackwell Publishers.

  • Pels, T., & de Ruyter, D. J. (2012). The influence of education and socialization on radicalization: An exploration of theoretical presumptions and empirical research. Child & Youth Care Forum, 41(3), 311325. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Pickel, G., & Pickel, S. (2018). Migration als Gefahr für die politische Kultur [Migration as a danger to political culture]? Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft, 12(1), 297320. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Pottie, K., Dahal, G., Georgiades, K., Premji, K., & Hassan, G. (2015). Do first generation immigrant adolescents face higher rates of bullying, violence and suicidal behaviours than do third generation and native born? Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health, 17(5), 15571566. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Roffey, S., & Boyle, C. (2018). Belief, belonging, and the role of schools in reducing the risk of home-grown terrorism. In K. Allen & C. Boyle (Eds.), Pathways to school belonging (pp. 149164). Brill|Sense.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 141166. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sabol, T. J., & Pianta, R. C. (2012). Recent trends in research on teacher–child relationships. Attachment & Human Development, 14(3), 213231. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Schulz, W., Ainley, J., Fraillon, J., Losito, B., Agrusti, G., & Friedman, T. (2017). ICCS 2016 International Report. Becoming citizens in a changing world. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73963-2

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Schulz, W., Carstens, R., Losito, B., & Fraillon, J. (Eds.). (2018). ICCS 2016 Technical Report. IEA.

  • Stephens, W., Sieckelinck, S., & Boutellier, H. (2021). Preventing violent extremism: A review of the literature. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 44(4), 346361. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Vergani, M., Iqbal, M., Ilbahar, E., & Barton, G. (2020). The three Ps of radicalization: Push, pull and personal. A systematic scoping review of the scientific evidence about radicalization into violent extremism. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 43(10), 854. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Wang, C., Hatzigianni, M., Shahaeian, A., Murray, E., & Harrison, L. J. (2016). The combined effects of teacher-child and peer relationships on children’s social-emotional adjustment. Journal of School Psychology, 59, 111. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Wong, T. K.Y., Parent, A.-M., & Konishi, C. (2019). Feeling connected: The roles of student-teacher relationships and sense of school belonging on future orientation. International Journal of Educational Research, 94, 150157. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Wolfowicz, M., Litmanovitz, Y., Weisburd, D., & Hasisi, B. (2020). A field-wide systematic review and meta-analysis of putative risk and protective factors for radicalization outcomes. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 36(3), 407447. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ziemes, J. F., & Abs, H. J. (2020). Welche schulischen Bedingungen sind geeignet um Toleranz zu fördern? Eine Analyse auf Basis der International Civic and Citizenship Education Study 2016 [Which school conditions are suitable for promoting tolerance? An analysis based on the International Civic and Citizenship Education Study 2016]. Die Deutsche Schule, 112(2), 157177.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ziemes, J. F., Hahn-Laudenberg, K. & Abs, H. J. (2020). The impact of schooling on trust in political institutions—Differences arising from students’ immigration backgrounds. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2020.100429

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ziemes, J. F., Jasper, J., Deimel, D., Hahn-Laudenberg, K., & Abs, H. J. (2017). ICCS 2016—Design und methodisches Vorgehen [ICCS 2106—design and methodology]. In H. J. Abs & K. Hahn-Laudenberg (Eds.), Das politische Mindset von 14-Jährigen: Ergebnisse der International Civic and Citizenship Education Study 2016 (pp. 4776). Waxmann.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Collapse
  • Expand

The Challenge of Radicalization and Extremism

Integrating Research on Education and Citizenship in the Context of Migration

Series:  Moral Development and Citizenship Education, Volume: 19

Metrics

All Time Past 365 days Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 390 125 9
PDF Views & Downloads 227 56 4