What is the best approach for preventing recruitment to terrorism? Findings from ABM experiments in social and situational prevention

IF 3.5 1区 社会学 Q1 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY Criminology & Public Policy Pub Date : 2022-02-21 DOI:10.1111/1745-9133.12579
David Weisburd, Michael Wolfowicz, Badi Hasisi, Mario Paolucci, Giulia Andrighetto
{"title":"What is the best approach for preventing recruitment to terrorism? Findings from ABM experiments in social and situational prevention","authors":"David Weisburd,&nbsp;Michael Wolfowicz,&nbsp;Badi Hasisi,&nbsp;Mario Paolucci,&nbsp;Giulia Andrighetto","doi":"10.1111/1745-9133.12579","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Research Summary</h3>\n \n <p>This study uses agent-based models (ABMs) to compare the impacts of three different types of interventions targeting recruitment to terrorism—community workers at community centers; community-oriented policing; and an employment program for high-risk agents. The first two programs are social interventions that focus on de-radicalization and changing the dispositions of agents in the model, whereas the employment program focuses on “deflection” and represents a situational/opportunity reducing approach to prevention. The results show significant impacts of the community worker and community policing interventions on radicalization but no significant impact on recruitment. In contrast, the employment intervention had a strong and significant impact on recruitment, but little impact on radicalization.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Policy Implications</h3>\n \n <p>Our ABM simulations challenge the reliance of existing programs to reduce recruitment to terrorism on counter and de-radicalization approaches. Instead they suggest that policy makers should focus more attention on deflection and opportunity reduction. At the same time, our ABMs point to the salience of social interventions focusing on risk and protective factors for reducing radicalization in society.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":47902,"journal":{"name":"Criminology & Public Policy","volume":"21 2","pages":"461-485"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1745-9133.12579","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Criminology & Public Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1745-9133.12579","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Research Summary

This study uses agent-based models (ABMs) to compare the impacts of three different types of interventions targeting recruitment to terrorism—community workers at community centers; community-oriented policing; and an employment program for high-risk agents. The first two programs are social interventions that focus on de-radicalization and changing the dispositions of agents in the model, whereas the employment program focuses on “deflection” and represents a situational/opportunity reducing approach to prevention. The results show significant impacts of the community worker and community policing interventions on radicalization but no significant impact on recruitment. In contrast, the employment intervention had a strong and significant impact on recruitment, but little impact on radicalization.

Policy Implications

Our ABM simulations challenge the reliance of existing programs to reduce recruitment to terrorism on counter and de-radicalization approaches. Instead they suggest that policy makers should focus more attention on deflection and opportunity reduction. At the same time, our ABMs point to the salience of social interventions focusing on risk and protective factors for reducing radicalization in society.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
防止招募人员加入恐怖主义的最佳方法是什么?ABM在社会和情境预防方面的实验结果
本研究采用基于主体的模型(ABMs)比较了三种不同类型的针对社区中心招募恐怖主义社区工作者的干预措施的影响;社区警务;还有高风险特工的就业计划。前两个项目是社会干预,侧重于去激进化和改变模型中代理人的性格,而就业项目侧重于“偏转”,代表了一种减少情境/机会的预防方法。结果显示,社区工作者和社区警务干预对激进化有显著影响,但对招募没有显著影响。相比之下,就业干预对招募有强烈而显著的影响,但对激进化的影响很小。我们的反弹道导弹模拟挑战了现有计划对减少恐怖主义招募的依赖,即反和去激进化方法。相反,他们建议政策制定者应该更多地关注偏转和减少机会。与此同时,我们的ABMs指出,社会干预的重点是减少社会激进化的风险和保护因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Criminology & Public Policy
Criminology & Public Policy CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY-
CiteScore
8.10
自引率
6.50%
发文量
41
期刊介绍: Criminology & Public Policy is interdisciplinary in nature, devoted to policy discussions of criminology research findings. Focusing on the study of criminal justice policy and practice, the central objective of the journal is to strengthen the role of research findings in the formulation of crime and justice policy by publishing empirically based, policy focused articles.
期刊最新文献
Can place‐based crime prevention impacts be sustained over long durations? 11‐Year follow‐up of a quasi‐experimental evaluation of a CCTV project Issue Information Disparities in court orders to relinquish firearms in civil domestic violence protection orders Implementation science (IS)—A game changer for criminology and criminal justice Understanding what violent street crime, globalization, and ice cream have in common
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1