| Title |
Parents’ Perspectives on Radicalization: A Qualitative Study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Child and Family Studies, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10826-018-1048-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Elga Sikkens, Marion van San, Stijn Sieckelinck, Micha de Winter |
| Abstract |
Radicalization of young people might be influenced by the way parents react towards the development of political or religious ideals. However, these reactions have hardly been explored. This study aimed to discover how parents reacted to the development of extreme ideals, and why they responded in the way that they did. To gain knowledge about the influence of parents on adolescents who developed extreme ideals, 82 in-depth interviews were held with adolescents and young adults who held extreme ideals. Interviews were also held with the parents or siblings of each adolescent and young adult. In line with parenting style theory, it was found that parents react in four possible ways: (1) by rejecting, (2) applauding, (3) ignoring, or (4) discussing the (extreme) ideals of their children. Few parents discuss ideals and values with their child, and this paper tries to show why (e.g., powerlessness, disassociation, occupation with other problems, believing it to be a phase that will pass, or that their reaction would not help). Most parents struggle to cope with radicalization and do not know how to react. Support and control are potentially important tools for parents to use to combat the development of extreme ideology. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 33% |
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 61 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 10% |
| Researcher | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 7 | 11% |
| Unknown | 23 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 16 | 26% |
| Social Sciences | 13 | 21% |
| Arts and Humanities | 3 | 5% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 3% |
| Unknown | 24 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 October 2021.
All research outputs
#3,403,241
of 23,867,274 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Child and Family Studies
#272
of 1,463 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,645
of 336,888 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Child and Family Studies
#15
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,867,274 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,463 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 336,888 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.