An Exploration of the Differential Effects of Parents' Authoritarianism Dimensions on Pre-school Children's Epistemic, Existential, and Relational Needs

Is radicalization a family issue? A systematic review of family-related risk and protective factors, consequences, and interventions against radicalization

BACKGROUND

Family-related risk and protective factors are crucial for different antisocial behaviors, but their role in radicalization requires synthesis. Radicalization is likely to have a negative impact on families, and well-designed and implemented family-focused intervention programs have the potential to decrease radicalization.

OBJECTIVES

Research questions were: (1) What are the family-related risk and protective factors for radicalization? (2) What is the impact of radicalization on families? (3) Are family-based interventions against radicalization effective?

SEARCH METHODS

Searches included 25 databases and hand searches of gray literature from April to July 2021. Leading researchers in the field were asked to provide published and unpublished studies on the topic. Reference lists of the included studies and previously published systematic reviews on risk and protective factors for radicalization were scanned.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Published and unpublished quantitative studies on family-related risk and protective factors for radicalization, the impact of radicalization on families, and family-focused interventions were eligible with no restrictions regarding the study year, location, or any demographic characteristic. Studies were included if they measured the relation between a family-related factor and radicalization or if they included a family-focused intervention against radicalization. For family-related risk and protective factors, radicalized individuals needed to be compared to general population. Studies were included if they defined radicalization as support or commission of violence to defend a cause, including support for radical groups.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The systematic search identified 86,591 studies. After screening, 33 studies focused on family-related risk and protective factors were included, with 89 primary effect sizes and 48 variables grouped in 14 factors. For the factors that included two or more studies, meta-analyses with random effects were conducted. When possible, moderator analyses were performed together with sensitivity and publication bias analyses. No studies on the impact of radicalization on families or family-focused interventions were included.

RESULTS

The current systematic review based on studies with 148,081 adults and adolescents from diverse geographic locations showed that parental ethnic socialization (z = 0.27), having extremist family members (z = 0.26), and family conflict (z = 0.11) were related to more radicalization, whereas high family socioeconomic status (z = -0.03), bigger family size (z = -0.05), and high family commitment (z = -0.06) were related to less radicalization. Separate analyses described family-factors for behavioral versus cognitive radicalization, and different radical ideologies including Islamist, right-wing and left-wing. It was not possible to distinguish risk and protective factors from correlates and the level of overall bias was mostly high. No results regarding the impact of radicalization on families or family-focused interventions were included.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although causal relations between family-related risk and protective factors could not be established, it is reasonable to suggest that policies and practice should aim at decreasing family-related risks and increasing protective factors for radicalization. Tailored interventions including these factors should be urgently designed, implemented and evaluated. Studies focused on the impact of radicalization on families and family-focused interventions are urgently needed together with longitudinal studies on family-related risk and protective factors.

Children's thinking about group-based social hierarchies

Wealth, power, and status are distributed unevenly across social groups. A surge of recent research reveals that people being recognizing, representing, and reasoning about group-based patterns of inequity during the first years of life. We first synthesize recent research on what children learn about group-based social hierarchies as well as how this learning occurs. We then discuss how children not only learn about societal structures but become active participants in them. Studying the origins and development of children's thoughts and behavior regarding group-based social hierarchies provides valuable insight into how systems of inequity are perpetuated across generations and how intergroup biases related to wealth, power, and status may be mitigated and reshaped early in development.

Early presence of a "power = males" association: Girls link power to their gender less often than boys but can be as motivated to gain it

In three studies, it was tested whether children (N = 184; aged 6-10 years, White, mid- to high income) from a U.S. midwestern city used other individuals' gender and race to predict who is in charge and the means by which power is gained (Study 1) and whether children's own gender predicted their assignments of positions of authority (Study 2A) and pursuits of positions of authority (Study 2B). When asked to predict who was in charge at different workplaces, with age White children decreased their race-based, power-related favoritism; children were increasingly likely with age to link White adults to rather questionable routes to power as well as Black adults with meritorious reasons for gaining power (Study 1). In addition, boys (but not girls) systematically associated power with adult workers of their own gender and did so regardless of whether or not power had been obtained meritoriously (Study 1). Nonetheless, when given the option to assign an authority role (Study 2A) or assume an authority role (Study 2B), boys and girls exhibited comparable levels of in-group and self-biases.

Children's inequality aversion in intergroup contexts: The role of parents' social dominance orientation, right-wing authoritarianism and moral foundations

Although children are overall sensitive to inequality and prefer fair allocation of resources, they also often display ingroup favouritism. Inquiring about the factors that can shape the tension between these two driving forces in children, we focused on the role of parents. Extending the limited literature in this field, the present work examined whether individual differences in 3-to 11-year-old White children’s (N = 154, 78 boys) evaluations of fair versus pro-ingroup behaviours in an intergroup context vary as a function of both mothers’ and fathers’ social dominance orientation (SDO), right-wing authoritarianism (RWA), and moral foundations. Parents completed a questionnaire. Children were presented with a scenario in which two ingroup members distributed candies to two other children, one White and one Black, either in an egalitarian way or displaying a clear ingroup favouritism. Afterwards, their attitudes towards the two ingroup members who had distributed the candies were assessed through both an Implicit Association Test and explicit questions. Although children displayed on average an explicit preference for the fair over the pro-ingroup target, this preference did not emerge at the implicit level. Most importantly, both children’s explicit and implicit attitudes were related to mothers’ SDO, indicating that at increasing level of mothers’ SDO children’s inequality aversion tended to drop. Overall, these results emphasize the relevance of mothers’ support for social hierarchy in relation to the way in which children balance the two competing drives of equality endorsement and pro-ingroup bias.

The origins of information processing preferences in politics: Examining parental influence

Cognitive motivations (e.g., need for cognition and need to evaluate) and decision strategies (e.g., rational choice vs. heuristic-based) importantly shape political understanding, evaluations, and vote choice. Despite the importance of these cognitive factors, few studies have examined their origins. Adopting an exploratory framework with a primary focus on parental influence, we uniquely address this research gap by identifying potential pathways through which parents can affect this development. Using a convenience sample of college students who participated in a 10-week panel study with their parents, we reveal that, unlike many other political characteristics, there is little parent-child similarity in cognitive motivations and decision strategies. We, however, find some similarity in the information search behaviors parents and children exhibit during the mock election campaign. The findings highlight the need to further investigate not only additional parenting behaviors, but also the socializing role of the information environment itself.

Brief Exposure to Infants Activates Social and Intergroup Vigilance

Among humans, simply looking at infants can activate affiliative and nurturant behaviors. However, it remains unknown whether mere exposure to infants also activates other aspects of the caregiving motivational system, such as generalized defensiveness in the absence of immediate threats. Here, we demonstrate that simply viewing faces of infants (especially from the ingroup) may heighten vigilance against social threats and support for institutions that purportedly maintain security. Across two studies, participants viewed and rated one among several image types (between-subjects design): Infants, adult males, adult females, and puppies in Study 1, and infants of varying racial/ethnic groups (including one's ingroup) and puppies in Study 2. Following exposure to one of these image types, participants completed measures of intergroup bias from a range of outgroups that differed in perceived threat, belief in a dangerous world, right-wing authoritarianism and social-political conservatism (relative to liberalism). In Study 1 (United States), stronger affiliative reactions to images of infants (but not adults or puppies) predicted stronger perceptions of a dangerous world, endorsement of right-wing authoritarianism, and support for social-political conservatism (relative to liberalism). Study 2 (Italy) revealed that exposure to images of ingroup infants (compared to outgroup infants) increased intergroup bias against outgroups that are characterized as threatening (immigrants and Arabs) and increased conservatism. These findings suggest a predisposed preparedness for social vigilance in the mere suggested presence of infants (e.g., viewing images) even in the absence of salient external threats.