MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4323838229 · doi:10.1080/09546553.2023.2178305

The Role of Basic Psychological Needs in Right-Wing Extremism Risk Among American Conservatives

2023· article· en· W4323838229 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueTerrorism and Political Violence · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTerrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political Violence
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPolitical scienceRight wingPsychologyViolent extremismCriminologySocial psychologyTerrorismLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Modern psychological theories of violent extremism stress the roles of social connections and personal meaning as motivators for individuals to participate in extremist groups. Personal meaning and social connections are both important aspects of Basic Psychological Needs Theory, a motivation framework commonly used in workplace and educational psychology. This study sought to assess the relationship between Basic Psychological Needs and extremism among (N = 361) self-identified American conservatives. Psychological Need fulfilment was strongly negatively associated with endorsement of extremism (range of rs = −.43 to −.68). In addition, Psychological Need fulfilment explained incremental variance in extremism scores after accounting for other psychological characteristics, including aggression, psychopathy, empathy, and Five-Factor Model personality traits. These findings suggest that Basic Psychological Needs may be a useful framework to expand our understanding of the etiology of extremism, and that prosocial alternatives for meeting these needs may reduce the risk of engaging in extremist behaviors.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.216
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.302 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it