The methodology was rigorous for a qualitative synthesis. The researchers screened 324 records identified through databases including Google Scholar, JSTOR, ScienceDirect, EBSCO, PubMed, PsycINFO, and ResearchGate, ultimately retaining 50 studies published between 2019 and 2024. Each country was treated as a unit of analysis, and the team applied Braun and Clarke’s six-phase thematic analysis to extract recurring patterns. They organized their findings into three overarching categories: the cultural thread, the radicalization framework, and social dynamics. The comparison was explicitly heuristic rather than homogenizing—the authors stress that radicalization is a historically produced, politically conditioned phenomenon, and that similar preventive instruments interact with profoundly different political environments rather than operating identically everywhere.

The most consequential finding concerns what motivates people to join extremist movements. Across all 15 countries, structural grievances—marginalization, repression, identity-based exclusion—often outweighed ideological motives. In northeastern Nigeria, groups like Boko Haram and ISWAP exploit perceptions of economic neglect and differing priorities among the country’s Hausa-Fulani, Muslim, Christian, and Igbo communities. In Kenya, Al Shabaab capitalizes on the historical marginalization of certain communities and the porous Somalia border. In Niger, ISGS has recruited Fulani youth by addressing grievances related to discrimination and economic hardship. In Ethiopia, ethno-linguistic federalism and fierce competition among ethnic groups, combined with high youth unemployment, create conditions conducive to radicalization. The pattern repeats in Sudan, where prolonged civil wars and the 2011 secession of South Sudan left many areas marginalized and receptive to extremist ideologies.

The review also documents how psychological vulnerabilities interact with these structural conditions. In Pakistan, research shows a significant correlation between childhood exposure to domestic violence and later involvement in violent extremism, with trauma, low self-worth, and emotional dysregulation rendering individuals more vulnerable to recruitment. Continued exposure to violence between parents and poor parent-child relationships can produce detachment from conventional moral values, increasing the likelihood of extremist behavior among young adults. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, the legacy of the 1990s war left deep ethnic divisions, collective trauma, and weakened institutions, with post-conflict trauma—including loss, displacement, and intergenerational psychological scars—amplifying susceptibility to radical narratives. In Colombia, communities affected by decades of armed conflict face intergenerational trauma and widespread hopelessness, particularly among youth.

Western contexts reveal their own distinct dynamics. In France, radicalization is inseparable from the country’s colonial history, republican secularism (laïcité), and a centralized security state, with economic disenfranchisement, urban segregation, and social marginalization linked to heightened support for radical movements among youth from immigrant or postcolonial backgrounds. The Yellow Vest protests exemplified how feelings of disconnection can push individuals toward extremism as they seek empowerment. In the United States, the review highlights social isolation, political polarization, and online radicalization, with far-right and far-left groups gaining traction and psychological dimensions such as envy identified as catalysts for extremist worldviews. The January 6, 2021 Capitol riots underscored threats to democratic institutions. In Australia, the rise of far-right extremism, particularly after the Christchurch Mosque attacks, revealed the need for a more comprehensive understanding of the social dynamics behind such violence.

The review is pointedly critical of Western-centric models. Several of the synthesized studies critiqued one-size-fits-all, securitized counter-extremism approaches for their lack of cultural sensitivity, recommending instead community-based and contextually grounded strategies. In France, President Macron’s efforts to identify radicalization across public domains have been criticized for potentially cultivating suspicion rather than vigilance, and the UK’s Prevent strategy has faced criticism for disproportionately targeting Muslim communities—possibly reinforcing the very grievances it aims to address. In Jordan, the review notes that over 132 terrorist incidents have resulted in 156 deaths, and that sustainable prevention requires not only psychosocial and educational interventions but also broader political solutions addressing regional injustice, particularly the unresolved Israeli-Palestinian conflict and its generation-spanning patterns of displacement and collective trauma.

Where does psychotherapy fit in? The review identifies several evidence-based therapeutic modalities already integrated into counter-violent extremism (CVE) frameworks. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) targets the cognitive distortions, black-and-white thinking, and maladaptive belief systems associated with extremist ideologies, helping clients challenge polarizing narratives and improve emotional regulation. Trauma-informed therapy addresses adverse life experiences—violence, abuse, neglect—that often precede radicalization, prioritizing safety and empowerment while avoiding retraumatization. Motivational Interviewing (MI) works for individuals ambivalent about disengaging from extremist networks, enhancing intrinsic motivation without confrontation. Family Therapy rebuilds trust and communication within families, serving as a protective buffer against re-offending. Narrative Therapy allows individuals to re-author their life stories, creating alternative identities that transcend extremist ideologies and detach from collective narratives of grievance and moral absolutism.

Real-world programs illustrate these principles in action. Germany’s Hayat program provides trauma-informed counseling to families of radicalized individuals, reducing anxiety and preventing re-engagement with extremist networks. In Nigeria, trauma-informed approaches have helped former militants cope with post-traumatic stress while reintegrating into local communities. In Colombia, trauma-informed group therapy for former child soldiers aims to rebuild social trust. In the Netherlands, involving family members in therapeutic reintegration significantly increases long-term commitment to disengagement. Australia’s Living Safe Together initiative delivers community outreach through localized psychoeducation and peer mentoring. In Indonesia, school-based mental health interventions integrating trauma counseling with civic education have successfully prevented youth recruitment. In Pakistan, the Paigham-e-Pakistan initiative coordinates deradicalization through the National Counter Terrorism Authority, combining corrective religious education with vocational training.

The review also emphasizes that radicalization is fundamentally a group-based, relational process—not merely an individual pathology. Social psychological frameworks like Moghaddam’s staircase model show how people move toward violence through progressive group processes shaped by perceived injustice, moral disengagement, and narrowing social alternatives. This means interventions must operate beyond the individual level. Empathy-building programs and psychoeducational workshops have shown promise in fostering tolerance among at-risk youth. Art therapy initiatives supporting social cohesion in post-conflict environments have yielded positive psychosocial results. Systemic family therapy has restored broken social bonds, providing space to renegotiate identity and belonging. In Indonesia, women’s organizations actively challenge patriarchal norms and dismantle the structural marginalization of women within terrorist networks, serving as de-radicalizing agents within families and society.

The authors are candid about limitations. The synthesis relies on published case studies and program evaluations, which may not capture informal grassroots efforts. The effectiveness of some therapeutic interventions remains difficult to quantify due to the sensitive and stigmatized nature of radicalization. Implementation barriers include limited institutional capacity, shortages of trained mental health professionals, difficulties sustaining long-term engagement, and challenges adapting Western therapeutic models to culturally distinct settings. Trust-building is a recurrent obstacle, particularly in communities with histories of surveillance, repression, or discriminatory security practices. Ethical dilemmas loom large: risks of stigmatization, blurred boundaries between care and surveillance, and the potential instrumentalization of mental health services for security objectives raise questions about consent, confidentiality, and professional autonomy. The distinction between prevention and rehabilitation is frequently blurred in practice, underscoring the need for greater conceptual clarity in CVE research and policy.

Despite these challenges, the review’s central message is clear: mental health interventions provide essential tools not just for individual healing but for reconstructing identity, rebuilding trust, and addressing structural grievances. By integrating psychotherapy into culturally sensitive, interdisciplinary CVE frameworks—involving psychotherapists, educators, community leaders, religious figures, and law enforcement—practitioners and policymakers can create sustainable pathways away from extremism and toward reintegration, resilience, and peace. The authors call for sustained funding for evidence-based psychological services, specialized training in radicalization dynamics and cross-cultural competence for mental health professionals, and longitudinal studies evaluating long-term efficacy, particularly in non-Western and post-conflict contexts. As violent extremism continues to evolve—from insurgent movements in Africa and Asia to ideologically motivated mass shootings in North America and far-right mobilizations in Europe—the review suggests that the most effective counter-strategy may begin not with force, but with understanding the human mind behind the violence.

Subject of Research: A cross-cultural systematic review of radicalization pathways and psychotherapeutic resilience mechanisms in violent extremism.

Article Title: Psychotherapeutic interventions in violent extremism: a cross-cultural review of radicalization pathways and resilience mechanisms

Article References: Mekolle, D. A., Unterrainer, H.-F., Raile, P., & Tóth, E. F. (2026). Psychotherapeutic interventions in violent extremism: a cross-cultural review of radicalization pathways and resilience mechanisms. Frontiers in Social Psychology, 4, Article 1699208. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsps.2026.1699208

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.3389/frsps.2026.1699208

Keywords: violent extremism, radicalization, psychotherapy, trauma-informed care, counter-violent extremism, resilience, marginalization, cognitive behavioral therapy, community-based prevention, collective trauma, deradicalization, cross-cultural psychology