CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 16Terrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political ViolencePopulism, Right-Wing MovementsIslamic Studies and Radicalism

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 22 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Zip-tie guys: military-grade radicalization among Capitol Hill insurrectionists

Moskalenko, Sophia·2021·Dynamics of Asymmetric Conflict
DOI 10.1080/17467586.2021.1912374
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Among rioters storming the Capitol Hill building in Washington, DC, on January, 6, 2021, two men carried zip ties, presumably for restraining lawmakers. The Zip-Tie Guys, as the media dubbed the duo, shared little except their path to radicalization through Risk and Status Seeking. This paper analyzes radicalization of the Zip-Tie guys in the context of the larger problem: radicalization in the U.S. military and among veterans. Other mechanisms contributing to radicalization in military training are Group Isolation and Threat, Group Polarization, and Slippery Slope. After retiring, many veterans are also experiencing the radicalizing effects of Unfreezing. Tracking and countering radicalization in active military and in military veterans might be prudent.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/17467586.2021.1912374

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • If MS effects using essay primes are only effective in these samples under those conditions, the explanatory power of this method may be more limited than is often presented.

    “Although this slice of the population can disproportionately inflict harm when faced with perceived threat [112–115], if MS effects using essay primes are only effective in these samples under those conditions, the explanatory power of this method may be more limited than is often presented.”

    From Not so terrifying after all? A set of failed replications of the mortality salience effects of Terror Management Theory (2023) · cites this paper as [113]

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 24 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Bertelsen P., 2015, Panorama: Insights into Asian and European Affairs, 1, 53.
  2. Corazalla, B. (2013).Assessing the needs of veterans during the transtion process from the military to civilian life(Doctoral dissertation). Milwaukee, WI: The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
  3. McCauley C. R., 2016, Friction: How conflict radicalizes them and us
  4. Радзинский Э. С., 2007, Александр II: жизнь и смерть
  5. Tryon M., 2006, With all our might: A progressive strategy for defeating Jihadism and defending liberty(p. 5)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Moskalenko, S.
Affiliations
Georgia State University (US)
Corresponding author
Moskalenko, Sophia
ORCID
Moskalenko, Sophia
Venue
Dynamics of Asymmetric Conflict
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2021-05-04
Volume
14
Issue
2
Pages
179-191
ISSN
  • 1746-7586 (ISSN-L)
  • 1746-7594
DOI
10.1080/17467586.2021.1912374
OpenAlex
W3174807654
Cited by
16
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1
FWCI
2.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Dynamics of Asymmetric Conflict (publishedVersion)
Funders
Office of Naval Research (N000 14-21-275485)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Terrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political Violence
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Populism, Right-Wing Movements
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Islamic Studies and Radicalism
Keywords
radicalization, January 6, 2021 Capitol attack, military veterans, risk seeking, status seeking, group isolation, threats, group polarization, slippery slope, unfreezing, radicalization prevention, military education

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review