Psychological Differences between Radicalized and non-Radicalized Muslim Prisoners: A Qualitative Analysis of their Frame Alignment

IF 0.6 4区 社会学 Q4 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY Monatsschrift Fur Kriminologie Und Strafrechtsreform Pub Date : 2021-07-01 DOI:10.1515/mks-2021-0131
M. Stemmler, Johann Endres, Sonja King, Bianca Ritter, Kristina Becker
{"title":"Psychological Differences between Radicalized and non-Radicalized Muslim Prisoners: A Qualitative Analysis of their Frame Alignment","authors":"M. Stemmler, Johann Endres, Sonja King, Bianca Ritter, Kristina Becker","doi":"10.1515/mks-2021-0131","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Do radicalized Muslim prisoners differ from non-radicalized Muslim prisoners with regard to Kruglanski’s (2004) quest for significance (QFS), need for (cognitive) closure (NFC), and their frame alignment regarding ideological and religious issues? To answer this research question N = 26 male inmates from Bavarian prisons were interviewed. The radicalized prisoners or extremists (n = 13) had been identified as Salafi or Jihadi adherents by the Bavarian Office for the Protection of the Constitution (Bayerischer Verfassungsschutz) and therefore had a security note. The comparison group were non-radicalized Muslim inmates (n = 13); the vast majority had a migration background. The audio files of the interviews were transcribed and Mayring’s (2010) qualitative content analysis was applied. The obtained interview material was analyzed twice (each time with a different focus) for psychological differences and characteristics between the two groups of Muslim prisoners. In the first analysis, the interviews were investigated with regard to conspiracy theories, dualistic conception of the world, political sensitivity, collective and individual victimization and religious rigidity. Extremists exhibited a stronger frame alignment with respect to general conspiracy theories, dualistic conception of the world, collective victimization, and political sensitivity. Results also substantiate the idea that extremists exhibit more rigid religious behaviors than non-extremist Muslim prisoners. Contrary to our expectations, the two groups did not differ in various biographical features, for example whether they grew up in a family that actively practiced their religion. In the second analysis, we found that although the overall pattern regarding QFS turned out as expected, the radicalized inmates did not achieve higher values than their non-radicalized counterparts. However, we obtained substantial differences for subcategories of QFS. The extremist prisoners reported more norm violations as a trigger for QFS and more opportunities for gaining significance than non-extremists. This was also true for non-legitimate as well as non-criminal opportunities to gain significance. There was a substantial difference between extremists and non-extremists regarding the overall NFC characteristics. Radicalized prisoners tend to avoid ambiguous situations or uncertainty, they prefer clear, structured processes and firm beliefs. The results suggest that it is possible to differentiate non-radicalized from radicalized Muslims as they showed less quest for significance, less need for closure, less political sensitivity and a less rigorous view on religion.","PeriodicalId":43577,"journal":{"name":"Monatsschrift Fur Kriminologie Und Strafrechtsreform","volume":"134 1-3 1","pages":"283 - 297"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Monatsschrift Fur Kriminologie Und Strafrechtsreform","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/mks-2021-0131","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Do radicalized Muslim prisoners differ from non-radicalized Muslim prisoners with regard to Kruglanski’s (2004) quest for significance (QFS), need for (cognitive) closure (NFC), and their frame alignment regarding ideological and religious issues? To answer this research question N = 26 male inmates from Bavarian prisons were interviewed. The radicalized prisoners or extremists (n = 13) had been identified as Salafi or Jihadi adherents by the Bavarian Office for the Protection of the Constitution (Bayerischer Verfassungsschutz) and therefore had a security note. The comparison group were non-radicalized Muslim inmates (n = 13); the vast majority had a migration background. The audio files of the interviews were transcribed and Mayring’s (2010) qualitative content analysis was applied. The obtained interview material was analyzed twice (each time with a different focus) for psychological differences and characteristics between the two groups of Muslim prisoners. In the first analysis, the interviews were investigated with regard to conspiracy theories, dualistic conception of the world, political sensitivity, collective and individual victimization and religious rigidity. Extremists exhibited a stronger frame alignment with respect to general conspiracy theories, dualistic conception of the world, collective victimization, and political sensitivity. Results also substantiate the idea that extremists exhibit more rigid religious behaviors than non-extremist Muslim prisoners. Contrary to our expectations, the two groups did not differ in various biographical features, for example whether they grew up in a family that actively practiced their religion. In the second analysis, we found that although the overall pattern regarding QFS turned out as expected, the radicalized inmates did not achieve higher values than their non-radicalized counterparts. However, we obtained substantial differences for subcategories of QFS. The extremist prisoners reported more norm violations as a trigger for QFS and more opportunities for gaining significance than non-extremists. This was also true for non-legitimate as well as non-criminal opportunities to gain significance. There was a substantial difference between extremists and non-extremists regarding the overall NFC characteristics. Radicalized prisoners tend to avoid ambiguous situations or uncertainty, they prefer clear, structured processes and firm beliefs. The results suggest that it is possible to differentiate non-radicalized from radicalized Muslims as they showed less quest for significance, less need for closure, less political sensitivity and a less rigorous view on religion.
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
激进化与非激进化穆斯林囚犯的心理差异:框架一致性的定性分析
激进的穆斯林囚犯与非激进的穆斯林囚犯在克鲁格兰斯基(2004)的意义追求(QFS)、(认知)封闭需求(NFC)以及他们在意识形态和宗教问题上的框架一致性方面有什么不同吗?为了回答这个研究问题,我们采访了巴伐利亚监狱的26名男性囚犯。激进囚犯或极端分子(n = 13)已被巴伐利亚宪法保护办公室确认为萨拉菲派或圣战分子的追随者,因此有安全照会。对照组为非激进穆斯林囚犯(n = 13);绝大多数人都有移民背景。对访谈的音频文件进行转录,并采用Mayring(2010)的定性内容分析。对获得的访谈材料进行了两次分析(每次都有不同的重点),以了解两组穆斯林囚犯之间的心理差异和特征。在第一次分析中,对访谈进行了关于阴谋论、二元论世界观、政治敏感性、集体和个人受害以及宗教僵化的调查。极端分子在一般阴谋论、世界二元论、集体受害和政治敏感性方面表现出更强的框架一致性。研究结果还证实,极端分子比非极端主义的穆斯林囚犯表现出更严格的宗教行为。与我们的预期相反,这两组人在各种传记特征上并没有什么不同,比如他们是否在一个积极从事宗教活动的家庭中长大。在第二次分析中,我们发现,尽管关于QFS的总体模式与预期一致,但激进囚犯的价值并不比非激进囚犯高。然而,我们在QFS的子类别上获得了实质性的差异。极端主义囚犯报告说,与非极端主义囚犯相比,极端主义囚犯更多地违反规范,从而引发了QFS,并且有更多的机会获得重要意义。对于获得重要意义的非合法和非犯罪机会也是如此。极端主义者和非极端主义者在NFC的总体特征上存在显著差异。激进的囚犯倾向于避免模棱两可或不确定的情况,他们更喜欢清晰、有组织的过程和坚定的信念。结果表明,区分非激进穆斯林和激进穆斯林是可能的,因为他们对意义的追求较少,对封闭的需求较少,政治敏感度较低,对宗教的看法也不那么严格。
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
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
20.00%
发文量
22
期刊最新文献
58. Kolloquium der Südwestdeutschen und Schweizerischen Kriminologischen Institute und Lehrstühle – Tagungsbericht Sig Sauers Rüstungsexporte nach Kolumbien: eine Fallanalyse organisationaler Devianz Threats to Scientifically Based Standards in Sex Offense Proceedings: Progress and the Interests of Alleged Victims in Jeopardy Frontmatter Vorurteilskriminalität vor Gericht – die Berücksichtigung von rassistischen, fremdenfeindlichen, antisemitischen oder sonstigen menschenverachtenden Zielen und Beweggründen gem. § 46 Abs. 2 S. 2 StGB im Rahmen der Strafzumessung
×
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