Deciding to support violence: An empirical examination of systematic decision-making, activism, and support for political violence
| Published date | 01 November 2021 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1748895820914385 |
| Date | 01 November 2021 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895820914385
Criminology & Criminal Justice
2021, Vol. 21(5) 669 –686
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1748895820914385
journals.sagepub.com/home/crj
Deciding to support violence:
An empirical examination of
systematic decision-making,
activism, and support for
political violence
Michael H Becker
University of Maryland, USA
Abstract
This study examines how attitudes of activism and systematic decision-making are related to
support for political violence. Using unique data from a randomly selected sample of undergraduate
and graduate students (N = 503), this study explores how activism, systematic decision-making,
and political affiliation coincides with existing support for political violence. Among respondents,
stronger support for activism and less systematic decision-making behavior was associated with
support for political violence on one’s behalf. These results hold across models and suggest that
in the United States, cognitive psychology and decision-making perspectives inform the decision
to support political violence and in turn, should be considered in efforts to curb support for
organizations which use political violence as a tactic.
Keywords
Activism, decision-making, political violence, TRDM, impulsivity
Introduction
In testimony on 23 July 2019 before the US Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Federal
Bureau of Investigation Director Christopher Wray (2019) stated that “The most persistent
threats to the Nation and to U.S. interests abroad are homegrown violent extremists
(‘HVEs’), domestic terrorists, and foreign terrorist organizations (‘FTOs’)” (p. 2). Citing a
Corresponding author:
Michael H Becker, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Maryland, 2220 LeFrak
Hall, College Park, MD 20742, USA.
Email: mbecker3@umd.edu
914385CRJ0010.1177/1748895820914385Criminology & Criminal JusticeBecker
research-article2020
Article
670 Criminology & Criminal Justice 21(5)
range of factors that include increased use of encrypted online platforms, perceptions of
government overreach, socio-political concerns, and racism, Wray suggested that the issues
of domestic terrorism and homegrown violent extremism extend beyond individual ideolo-
gies and amount to a serious threat to national security. Adding to this concern, recent
public reporting has suggested that domestic political extremists have exhibited a short-
ened time span between the adoption of extremist views and the perpetration of violent acts
(Barrett, 2019). As a result, law enforcement agencies in the United States are placed at a
distinct disadvantage as the temporal window to detect and prevent violent acts narrows.
In response to the threat of extremist violence, since 2011 the Department of Homeland
Security Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) Task Force has worked alongside non-
governmental organizations and community stakeholders advancing a prevention-focused
model called “Countering Violent Extremism” (CVE) (Department of Homeland Security,
2017). Generally, CVE initiatives aim to raise awareness of extremist messaging and pre-
vent the adoption of views that engender political violence based on strategies that iden-
tify at-risk communities and individuals and develop resilience and counter-narratives
(Harris-Hogan et al., 2016). This approach requires both an understanding of individuals
who support or adopt extremist views and how these individuals may differ systematically
from comparable politically and socially involved individuals. Though recent research
has focused on the former issue using quantitative and qualitative methods (Jensen et al.,
2018; LaFree et al., 2018), limited focus has been placed on examining the latter.
The present study suggests that theories of systematic decision-making are a promising
framework that could aid in describing systematic differences between supporters of
political violence and non-violent activists, thereby filling this gap and aiding future CVE
efforts. To date, research on decision-making finds that individuals who are less likely to
deeply consider the consequences of their actions tend to engage in a variety of antisocial
behaviors and achieve negative outcomes (Louderback and Antonaccio, 2017; Paternoster
and Pogarsky, 2009). Moreover, Paternoster and Pogarsky (2009) and Frederick (2005)
find that systematic decision-making is strongly linked with short- and long-term positive
outcomes. Consequently, examining decision-making among individuals who support
activism and political violence could prove fruitful in identifying appropriate comparison
groups for CVE interventions and inform efforts to degrade support for, and potentially
reduce the use of political violence (Malthaner and Waldmann, 2014).
This study aims to contribute to the empirical literature by exploring how systematic
decision-making can describe support for activism and political violence in a university
sample. In order to do so, novel individual-level survey data were collected on a ran-
domly selected sample of undergraduate and graduate students at a large public univer-
sity. These individual-level data, collected in the fall and winter of 2018, include scales
of activism and radicalism, Thoughtfully Reflective Decision-Making (TRDM), impul-
sivity, and cognitive reflection.
Activism and political violence
Across the political spectrum, individuals hoping to achieve change have taken to the
streets, the papers, and the Internet to garner support for their cause (Bonilla and Rosa,
2015; Walsh, 2000). However, these movements are not always peaceful, and examples
To continue reading
Request your trial