Radicalization, the Internet and Cybersecurity: Opportunities and Challenges for HCI

  • Joanne HindsEmail author
  • Adam Joinson
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10292)


The idea that the internet may enable an individual to become radicalized has been of increasing concern over the last two decades. Indeed, the internet provides individuals with an opportunity to access vast amounts of information and to connect to new people and new groups. Together, these prospects may create a compelling argument that radicalization via the internet is plausible. So, is this really the case? Can viewing ‘radicalizing’ material and interacting with others online actually cause someone to subsequently commit violent and/or extremist acts? In this article, we discuss the potential role of the internet in radicalization and relate to how cybersecurity and certain HCI ‘affordances’ may support it. We focus on how the design of systems provides opportunities for extremist messages to spread and gain credence, and how an application of HCI and user-centered understanding of online behavior and cybersecurity might be used to counter extremist messages. By drawing upon existing research that may be used to further understand and address internet radicalization, we discuss some future research directions and associated challenges.


Radicalization Cyber security Online behavior 


Funding Disclosure Statement

This research was funded by the Centre for Research and Evidence on Security Threats (ESRC Award: ES/N009614/1), which is funded in part by the UK security and intelligence agencies. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.


  1. 1.
    Conway, M.: Terrorism and the internet: new media—new threat? Parliam. Aff. 59(2), 283–298 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Conway, M.: Terrorist use of the internet and the challenges of governing cyberspace. In: Power and Security in the Information Age: Investigating the Role of the State in Cyberspace, pp. 95–127 (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aly, A., Macdonald, S., Jarvis, L., Chen, T.M.: Introduction to the special issue: terrorist online propaganda and radicalization. Stud. Terror. Confl. 40, 1–9 (2016)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Conway, M.: Determining the role of the internet in violent extremism and terrorism: six suggestions for progressing research. Stud. Confl. Terror. 25 (2016)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gendron, A.: The call to jihad: charismatic preachers and the internet. Stud. Confl. Terror. 40(1), 44–61 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schmid, A.P.: Radicalisation, de-radicalisation, counter-radicalisation: a conceptual discussion and literature review. ICCT Res. Pap. 97, 22 (2013)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fraihi, T.: Escalating radicaliastion: the debate within muslim and immigrant communities. In: Jihadi Terrorism and the Radicalization Challenge in Europe. Ashgate, Hampshire (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wilner, A.S., Dubouloz, C.J.: Homegrown terrorism and transformative learning: an interdisciplinary approach to understanding radicalization. Glob. Chang. Peace Secur. 22(1), 33–51 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Borum, R.: Radicalization into violent extremism I: a review of social science theories. J. Strateg. Secur. 4(4), 7–36 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Horgan, J.: From profiles to pathways and roots to routes: perspectives from psychology on radicalization into terrorism. Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci. 618(1), 80–94 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Runciman, W.G.: Relative deprivation and social justice: study attitudes social inequality in 20th century England (1966)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gurr, T.R.: Why Men Rebel. Routledge, Abingdon (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Korpi, W.: Conflict, power and relative deprivation. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 68(04), 1569–1578 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Walker, I., Pettigrew, T.F.: Relative deprivation theory: an overview and conceptual critique. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 23(4), 301–310 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gunning, J.: Social movement theory and the study of terrorism. In: Critical Terrorism Studies: A New Research Agenda, pp. 156–177 (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lofland, J., Skonovd, N.: Conversion motifs. J. Sci. Stud. Relig. 20, 373–385 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Moscovici, S.: Toward a theory of conversion behavior. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 13, 209–239 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rambo, L.R.: Theories of conversion: understanding and interpreting religious change. Soc. Compass 46(3), 259–271 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Borum, R.: Understanding the terrorist mindset. FBI Law Enforc. Bull. 72(7), 7–10 (2003)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Moghaddam, F.M.: The staircase to terrorism: a psychological exploration. Am. Psychol. 60(2), 161 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sageman, M.: A strategy for fighting international Islamist terrorists. Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci. 618(1), 223–231 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wiktorowicz, Q.: Joining the cause: Al-Muhajiroun and radical Islam. In: Devji, F. (ed.) The Roots of Islamic Radicalism conference, Yale. Landscapes of the Jihad: Militancy, Morality and Modernity. C Hurst & Co Publishers Ltd., London (2004)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Silber, M.D., Bhatt, A., Analysts, S.I.: Radicalization in the West: The Homegrown Threat, pp. 1–90. Police Department, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Precht, T.: Home grown terrorism and Islamist radicalisation in Europe. From conversion to terrorism (2007)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Norman, D.A.: The Psychology of Everyday Things. Basic Books, New York (1988)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gibson, J.J.: The theory of affordances. In: Shaw, R., Bransford, J. (eds.) Perceiving, Acting, and Knowing (1977)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Taylor, P.J., Holbrook, D., Joinson, A.: Same kind of different. Criminol. Public Policy 16(1), 127–133 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gibson, J.J.: The theory of affordances. In: The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception, pp. 127–143 (1979)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ashour, O.: Online de-radicalization? Countering violent extremist narratives: message, messenger and media strategy. Perspect. Terror. 4(6) (2011)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Chen, T., Jarvis, L., Macdonald, S.: Cyberterrorism. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Torok, R.: “Make A Bomb In Your Mums Kitchen”: Cyber Recruiting and Socialisation of ‘White Moors’ and Home Grown Jihadists (2010)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Von Behr, I.: Radicalisation in the digital era: the use of the Internet in 15 cases of terrorism and extremism (2013)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gill, P., Corner, E., Conway, M., Thornton, A., Bloom, M., Horgan, J.: Terrorist use of the internet by the numbers. Criminol. Public Policy 16(1), 99–117 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tajfel, H.: Social psychology of intergroup relations. Ann. Rev. Psychol. 33(1), 1–39 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Taylor, D.M., Moghaddam, F.M.: Theories of Intergroup Relations: International Social Psychological Perspectives. Greenwood Publishing Group, Westport (1994)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Latane, B., Williams, K., Harkins, S.: Many hands make light the work: the causes and consequences of social loafing. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 37(6), 822 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Myers, D.G., Lamm, H.: The polarizing effect of group discussion: the discovery that discussion tends to enhance the average prediscussion tendency has stimulated new insights about the nature of group influence. Am. Sci. 63(3), 297–303 (1975)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Janis, I.L.: Victims of Groupthink: A Psychological Study of Foreign-Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. Houghton Mifflin, Boston (1972)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Asch, S.E.: Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychol. Monogr.: Gen. Appl. 70(9), 1 (1956)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lea, M., Spears, R.: Computer-mediated communication, de-individuation and group decision-making. Int. J. Man Mach. Stud. 34, 283–301 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Postmes, T., Spears, R., Lea, M.: Breaching or building social boundaries? SIDE-effects of computer-mediated communication. Commun. Res. 25, 689–715 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sia, C.L., Tan, B.C., Wei, K.K.: Group polarization and computer-mediated communication: effects of communication cues, social presence, and anonymity. Inf. Syst. Res. 13(1), 70–90 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Gottfried, J., Shearer, E.: News Use Across Social Media Platforms 2016. Pew Research Centre (2016). Accessed 10 Feb 2017
  44. 44.
    Bakshy, E., Messing, S., Adamic, L.A.: Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science 348(6239), 1130–1132 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Baer, D.: The ‘Filter Bubble’ Explains Why Trump Won and You Didn’t See It Coming (2016). Accessed 10 Feb 2017
  46. 46.
    Cialdini, R.B.: Influence, vol. 3. A. Michel (1987)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    McKenna, K.Y., Bargh, J.A.: Coming out in the age of the internet: identity “demarginalization” through virtual group participation. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 75(3), 681 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    De Koster, W., Houtman, D.: Stormfront is like a second home to me: on virtual community formation by right-wing extremists. Inf. Commun. Soc. 11(8), 1153–1175 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Gonzales, A.L., Hancock, J.T.: Identity shift in computer-mediated environments. Media Psychol. 11(2), 167–185 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Qu, Y., Huang, C., Zhang, P., Zhang, J.: Microblogging after a major disaster in China: a case study of the 2010 Yushu Earthquake. In: Proceedings of CSCW 2011, pp. 25–34 (2011)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Starbird, K., Palen, L., Hughes, A., Vieweg, S.: Chatter on the red: what hazards threat reveals about the social life of microblogged information. Proceedings of CSCW 2010, 241–250 (2010)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Conway, M.: From al-Zarqawi to al-Awlaki: the emergence and development of an online radical milieu. CTX: Combat. Terror. Exch. 2(4), 12–22 (2012)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Gleason, B.: # occupy wall street: exploring informal learning about a social movement on Twitter. Am. Behav. Sci. 57(7), 966–982 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Starbird, K., Palen, L.: (How) will the revolution be retweeted? Information diffusion and the 2011 Egyptian uprising. In: Proceedings of the ACM 2012 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, pp. 7–16. ACM, February 2012Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Wulf, V., Misaki, K., Atam, M., Randall, D., Rohde, M.: ‘On the ground’ in Sidi Bouzid: investigating social media use during the tunisian revolution. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, pp. 1409–1418. ACM, February 2013Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Cheung, A.S.: China internet going wild: cyber-hunting versus privacy protection. Comput. Law Secur. Rev. 25(3), 275–279 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Tonkin, E., Pfeiffer, H.D., Tourte, G.: Twitter, information sharing and the London riots? Bull. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 38(2), 49–57 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Christensen, H.: Political activities on the Internet: slacktivism or political participation by other means? First Monday 2 (2011).
  59. 59.
    Schumann, S., Klein, O.: Substitute or stepping stone? Assessing the impact of low-threshold online collective actions on offline participation. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 45(3), 308–322 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Morozov, E.: The brave new world of slacktivism [Weblog post] (2009).
  61. 61.
    Gladwell, M.: Small change: why the revolution will not be tweeted [Weblog post] (2010).
  62. 62.
    Sproull, L., Kiesler, S.: Reducing social context cues: electronic mail in organizational communication. Manag. Sci. 32(11), 1492–1512 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Ellison, N., Heino, R., Gibbs, J.: Managing impressions online: self-presentation processes in the online dating environment. J. Comput.-Mediat. Commun. 11(2), 415–441 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Toma, C.L., Hancock, J.T., Ellison, N.B.: Separating fact from fiction: an examination of deceptive self-presentation in online dating profiles. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 34(8), 1023–1036 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Guadagno, R.E., Okdie, B.M., Kruse, S.A.: Dating deception: gender, online dating, and exaggerated self-presentation. Comput. Hum. Behav. 28(2), 642–647 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Hancock, J.T., Toma, C., Ellison, N.: The truth about lying in online dating profiles. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 449–452. ACM, April 2007Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    McVeigh, T., Reidy, T.: Families who fear Isis is targeting their children urged to lock up their passports. Guard. (2015).
  68. 68.
    Kelly, A.E., Rodriguez, R.R.: Publicly committing oneself to an identity. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 28, 185–191 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Tice, D.: Self-concept shift and self-presentation: the looking glass self is also a magnifying glass. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 63, 435–451 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Schlenker, B.R., Dlugolecki, D.W., Doherty, K.: The impact of self- presentations on self-appraisals and behavior: The power of public commitment. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 20, 20–33 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Walther, J.B.: Computer-mediated communication impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Commun. Res. 23(1), 3–43 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Walther, J.B., Parks, M.R.: Cues filtered out, cues filtered. In: Handbook of Interpersonal Communication, pp. 529–563 (2002)Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Kaplan, A.M., Haenlein, M.: Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media. Bus. Horiz. 53(1), 59–68 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Anti-Defamation League: Best practices for responding to cyberhate (2014)Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Harper, F.M., Frankowski, D., Drenner, S., Ren, Y., Kiesler, S., Terveen, L., Riedl, J.: Talk amongst yourselves: inviting users to participate in online conversations. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, pp. 62–71. ACM, January 2007Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Kiesler, S., Kraut, R., Resnick, P., Kittur, A.: Regulating behavior in online communities. In: Building Successful Online Communities: Evidence-Based Social Design. MIT Press, Cambridge (2012)Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Lampe, C., Resnick, P.: Slash (dot) and burn: distributed moderation in a large online conversation space. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 543–550. ACM, April 2004Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Preece, J.: Empathic communities: balancing emotional and factual communication. Interact. Comput. 12(1), 63–77 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Information, Decisions and Operations, School of ManagementUniversity of BathBathUK

Personalised recommendations