Getting out of the Armchair: Potential Tipping Points for Online Radicalisation

Epistemology Of Tipping Points

One of the earliest uses of the term ‘tipping points’ in sociology can be seen in the pioneering work of Morton Grodzins who observed how in a particular neighbourhood in the late 1950s, white individuals who lived in areas dominated by non-whites started moving out in droves when the number of non-whites exceeded a certain threshold (Grodzins, 1958, 2007; “The original tipping point”, 2009). Mark Granovetter (1978) later expanded on this concept in his threshold model. In this model, Granovetter stated that individual behaviour is contingent on those who are already partaking in that behaviour. It is not simply about following others or about being influenced by them. Rather, the tipping point depends on the number of individuals who eventually ascribe to the act and is based on a cost-benefit calculation for partaking in the act or leaving it.

Applying this to the radicalisation process, an individual may choose to join an extremist group at a threshold point where the cost of partaking is low compared to the benefits of being in the group, and vice-versa for leaving. Different individuals naturally have varying thresholds (Granovetter, 1978). The key contribution from the threshold model is in revealing the importance of barriers to action as compared to simply focusing on forces of attraction. These barriers (i.e., threshold points) are in fact synonymous with the idea of what tipping points actually constitute. Over time, social interaction models have also recognised that one’s choices are at times dependant on the choices of others following their interactions, and this leads to a complex dynamic with ‘multiple equilibrium and tipping points’ (Card, Mas, & Rothstein, 2007).