1. Entitativity and Ideology
A grounded theory of disengagement
Content
Definitions
Research objectives
Methodology
Ethics
Grounded theory
Emerging categories
An understanding in this area provides opportunities to facilitate or prohibit individual disengagment from groups and can identify areas requiring support for those considering leaving

2. Social Groups Entitativity Ideology Gestalt psychology
Proximity (social distance)
Similarity (normative behav., attitudes, appearance)
Shared goals and fate, (moving towards a common purpose)
Organisation (formal or implied)
Cohesiveness (impermeable boundaries/exclusivity, resistant to disruptive influences)
Political, religious and/or social world view
Belief systems prescribing normative attitudes and behaviours
Ontological/personal security
The sub-group is more than a mere aggregate of people, but represents a fundamental form of social behaviour that determines life experiences and self-identity. As self-worth becomes vested in the prominence of the group, individuals work to ensure the success of the group, its reputation and to increase exposure.
Group entitativity, the concept of perceiving a group as an entity with an emphasis on Gestalt principles of proximity, similarity, organisation, and common fate, is significant in shaping the social identity of members and the internalisation of group norms through psychological processes (Campbell, 1958; Hogg & Reid, 2006). Proximity refers to the social distance between individuals and is conceptualised in terms of social interaction (Bogardus, 1933). Conformity to group norms is a method of reducing social distance as it emphasises interpersonal similarities on domains in which members do not want to differ, either positively or negatively (Akerlof, 1997). Similarity is the internal homogeneity and behavioural consistencies which form a collective identity and promote segregation between groups with differing dynamic characteristics (Read, Vanman, & Miller, 1997). In-group homogeneity is stronger when there are no motivational forces existing to distinguish the self from others within the group, thus the process of self-categorisation and deindividuation by a members serves to increase the internal perception of homogeneity and entitativity (Brewer, 1993; Simon, Pantaleo, & Mummendey, 1995; Stets & Burke, 2000). The successive observation of members moving together represents the common fate. Having a common group goal, or a shared threat, significantly influences group processes and 82 effectiveness by enhancing intra-group solidarity and reducing the likeliness of internal factioning (Brewer, 1999). The cohesiveness of a group is observed through multiple measures; shared norms, mutual acceptance, attraction to group and the resistance to disruptive influences. External competition and threats can serve to strengthen group cohesion, improving group performance and intra-group satisfaction. Negatively, elevated cohesion can pressure members into conformity and group think, and raise anxieties when structures change or members leave. Finally, the organisational structure (whether formally acknowledged or not) distinguishes highly entitative sub-groups from the basic aggregate of people. The organisation can endorse a recognisable hierarchy and leadership structure, or it may be implicit through the status of individual members. The characteristics of entitativity, in combination with ideological reinforcements, provide members a sense of identity and shared purpose, which when exposed to a perceived threat increases intra-group solidarity and ethnocentrism
Proximity, (physical distance) for example, communal living , training, meetings
similarity, (normative behaviour, appearance) 1% patches, military uniforms. Normative behaviour – what is socially accepted within that group, for example rituals
common goals and fate, (working towards a shared goal, when the group fails it is internalised) all on one, one on all
organisation, (most distinctive feature), predominantly in these groups its hierarchal with leadership w/ formal rules
Cohesiveness

3. Entitativity and Ideology
intense and uncompromising identification and allegiance;
belief system prescribing normative attitudes and behaviours, and an ideological structure to explain and justify involvement;
intolerance of internal dissent and deviation of normative expectations;
the promotion of a single uncomplicated version of the ‘truth’;
an ‘us versus them’ mentality; and
a hierarchical internal structure that grants authority and power to group leaders

4. Disengagement Disengagement or deradicalisation? Process
- Physical change or cognitive shift
Process
Crisis / Disillusionment
Review and reflection
Disengagement
Formation of ex-identity
While deradicalisation and disengagement are terms often used interchangeably to explain the same phenomena, they refer to different social and psychological processes. Deradicalisation implies the individual has experienced a cognitive shift whereby the ideology and/or method of the group is viewed unfavourably (Fink & Hearne, 2008). Unlike deradicalisation, disengagement does not require a change in perspective, instead referring to the behavioural change, such as the act of leaving a group in its entirety or changing the role within it (Fink & Hearne, 2008).
Individuals can deradicalise without disconnect social ties to the group, and vice versa, the individual may disengage from the group while maintaining a radical ideology. However, the processes are often complimentary and serve to initiate or strengthen the secondary process, with disengagement from radical groups linked to the moderation of radical beliefs (Demant, Slootman, Buijs, & Tillie, 2008a, 2008b). Conversely, the assumption of disengagement reflecting cognitive changes in values, attitudes and shared norms needs to consider the alternative whereby an individual still harbours radical beliefs but has replaced the group with other socially relevant behaviours (Horgan, 2008).
The cognitive shift initiating the deradicalisation process is often prompted by an experience of trauma causing the individual to challenge the group’s interpretation of ideology (Fink & Hearne, 2008). The individual experiences a ‘cognitive opening’, becoming receptive to alternative views. The cognitive opening can be beneficial for those to engage with the person and persuade them to other alternatives. This is referred to by academics and government organisations as ‘rehabilitation’, ‘resocialisation’, or ‘dialogue’ (Fink & Hearne, 2008).
It is understood the radicalisation of an individual is a result of group psychology, and equally, the disengagement involves group processes that impact on the individual (Bjørgo & Horgan, 2009). As such, considering both individual and social psychology is important in developing a comprehensive, multi-level model of disengagement. Understanding the vulnerabilities of these social groups can provide a foundation for policy making and countering radical organisations.
However, Bjørgo and Horgan (2009) argue disengagement from groups of diverging ideologies, such as terrorist groups, religious „cults‟, racist groups, and criminal youth gangs, share similar factors and processes despite their varying beliefs and backgrounds. While political and ideological frameworks may vary between groups, social and psychological processes may be comparable with members moving through stages of disillusionment, review and reflection, disengagement, and development of the ex-identity (Ebaugh, 1988; Rabasa, Pettyjohn, Ghez, & Boucek, 2010; Skonovd, 1981; Wright, 1987). The influence of high entitativity and fundamental ideologies ensures any consideration towards leaving induces socio-psychological strain and practical consequences. (paper acknowledges the barriers)

5. Research objectives
Identify the psychological and sociological factors of disengagement
Compare between individuals of varying ideologies/context
Determine if dominant psychological and sociological factors can be observed
Construct a model of disengagement from highly entitative and ideological social groups
These research objectives align with the objectives of a grounded theory methodology in that it is emergent rather than hypotheses testing.

6. Methodology Participant recruitment Semi-structured interviews
Participant type
Number
Fundamentalist religious 8
Left wing political activism 1
Pseudo psychotherapeutic cult
One percent motorcycle clubs 4
Special forces 6
The groups selected for this study display self-categorisation in terms of imposed boundaries between themselves and the mainstream and strong connections between members, and perceived homogeneity providing members with a sense of shared purpose.
Recruitment required identifying former members of sub-groups, through a systematic approach of incorporated snowballing, chain referrals and purposive sampling, who were willing to share their experiences and participate in the study. Methods of recruitment included personal and professional networks, online forums, newsletters, requests to high profile former members, formal requests to support organisations and developing relationships within the target group‟s informal milieu

7. Ethics Special populations Sensitivity of data Confidentiality
Criminality
Are disclosing highly personal information – some participants are putting themselves at risk by talking
Have experienced trauma and may feel they are relieving it
(offering counselling services), debriefing at the end
Pseudonyms
Data storage
ACC powers of coercion, implications of disclosing certain crimes

8. Data analysis – Grounded theory (Strauss and Corbin)
Key words
Categories/Themes
Note taking
Open (Examining and categorising data)
Axial (relating categories and their properties)
Selective (validation, refinement and development)
Coding
Record connections between categories
Follow construction of theory
Memos
Open (breaking down, examining, comparing, conceptualizing, and categorizing data)
Axial (conditions, context, action/interactional strategies and consequences)
Selective coding (Selecting the core category, relating it to other categories, validating those relationships, and filling in categories that need further refinement and development)

9. Emerging categories Disillusionment Review and reflection
Disillusionment with authority or group relationships
Leader prototypes
Response to personal events
Tattling / spying
Performance satisfaction
Competency
Forced into new roles
Continuance factors
Burn out
Competing time and resources
Review and reflection
Responsiveness
Self doubt
What else am I going to do?
Is it just me?
Distancing

10. Emerging categories Disengagement Formation of the ex-identity
Anticipatory socialisation
Adopting new reference groups
Continuance factors
Formation of the ex-identity
Residual effects
Nightmares, fear of being found / followed
Replicating intensity or relationships
Guilt - devote time to assist others

11. Q&A