Bifactor analyses provide uncorrelated measures of activism intentions and radicalism intentions

ABSTRACT

Activism is legal and non-violent political action, whereas Radicalism is illegal and sometimes violent action. Moskalenko and McCauley introduced the Activism Intentions Scale (AIS) and the Radicalism Intentions Scale (RIS) as related but distinguishable dimensions: the scales were significantly correlated but showed different correlates. The same pattern has been seen consistently in subsequent research using the scales. In this paper, two studies (280 Catalan university students, 163 Croatian adults) use bifactor analysis to measure Activism Intentions uncorrelated with Radicalism Intentions, and Radicalism Intentions uncorrelated with Activism Intentions. Scores on the purified scales show more differentiated patterns of correlates than scores on the usual item-average scales, that is, bifactor scores show improved discriminant validity. These results support the idea that activism and radicalism are different theoretical constructs. The distinction is important because it implies that fighting radicalization does not require fighting activism.

KEYWORDS:

• ARIS
• activism intentions scale
• radicalism intentions scale
• political protest
• violent protest
• violent extremism

Data availability statement

Data used in this study are available from the first author upon request.

Correction Statement

This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Notes

1. Several investigators (Decker & Pyrooz, 2019; Fodeman, Snook, & Horgan, 2020) have used a ten-item version of ARIS, with two additional RIS items that Moskalenko and McCauley (2009) dropped for low loadings. In this paper, we focus on the original eight-item ARIS for two reasons: first to ensure that both AIS and RIS items load consistently on the two scales, and second to provide similar scale reliability with the same number of items for each scale.

2. Terms used to search Google Scholar for most frequently cited radicalization measures included “radicalization scale,” “radicalization measure,” “radicalization psychometrics” and “radicalization assessment.” Top four pages of search results (40 articles for each search term, 160 articles in total) were then reviewed with respect to what measure was used by the authors. Citation counts for the two most frequently used measures were obtained by searching Google Scholar for the original articles that introduced the radicalization scales.

3. We also applied some ancillary bifactor analyses (see Dueber, 2020), which pointed out the substantial information loss in single-factor models of ARIS. These analyses are available from authors upon request.

4. Analyses without item r1 are not exhibited here, but available from the authors. In these analyses, only the two bifactor models achieved adequate fit. Other than fit estimates and lower correlation of activism and radicalism, no substantial differences in model correlates with and without the item r1 were found.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Croatian Science Foundation [DOK-01-2018]

Notes on contributors

Tomislav Pavlović

Tomislav Pavlović is a PhD student and a department member at the Institute of Social Sciences Ivo Pilar. His primary interests are intrapersonal and intergroup factors that contribute to radicalization. Next to working on the project Dialogue about Radicalization and Equality (DARE), he also works as a correspondent for Center for Research on Extremism (C-REX).

Sophia Moskalenko

Sophia Moskalenko is a social psychologist studying mass identity, inter-group conflict and conspiracy theories. Her research has focused on the psychology of radicalization, self-sacrifice and martyrdom. Dr. Moskalenko’s work has been presented in scientific conferences, government briefings, radio broadcasts and international television newscasts. As a research fellow at the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (NC-START) she has worked on research projects commissioned by the Department of Defence, Department of Energy, Department of Homeland Security, and Department of State. She has co-written several books, including award-winning Friction: How conflict radicalizes them and us, and The Marvel of Martyrdom: The power of self-sacrifice in the selfish world, and Pastels and Pedophiles: Inside the Mind of QAnon.

Clark McCauley

Clark McCauley ([email protected]) is Research Professor of Psychology at Bryn Mawr College.  His research interests include stereotypes, group dynamics, and the psychological foundations of ethnic conflict and genocide.  He is co-author of Why Not Kill Them All? The Logic and Prevention of Mass Political Murder (2006), co-author of Friction: How Radicalization Happens to Them and Us (2011, second edition 2017), co-author of The Marvel of Martyrdom: The Power of Self-Sacrifice in a Selfish World (2019), co-author of Radicalization to Terrorism: What Everyone Needs to Know (2020), and Founding Editor emeritus of the journal Dynamics of Asymmetric Conflict: Pathways toward Terrorism and Genocide.