The theory of frame alignment posits that the congruence between an organization’s interpretative frames and its followers’ beliefs is key to social mobilization. However, recent research suggests that this relationship does not require total or sustained alignment. This study examines the degree of misalignment that may be tolerable in the shared construction of reality between organizations and their followers before they abandon the organization or even the social movement it represents.

To address this, the study analyzes the (mis)alignment in diagnostic, prognostic, and responsibility attribution frames between two central organizations of the global jihadist movement (al-Qaeda and the Islamic State) and three types of former militants: the loyalists, who remain aligned with a specific jihadist organization; the disconnected, who have abandoned a jihadist organization but still sympathize with the Salafist movement; and the renegades, who have rejected both the jihadist organizations and the Salafist movement altogether.

Based on a comparative analysis of the framing strategies employed by these two organizations and the narratives of 24 former militants interviewed in Spanish prisons, the findings reveal that loyalists show high alignment with diagnostic and responsibility attribution frames and moderate alignment with prognostic frames. Disconnected individuals exhibit moderate alignment with the first two frames but low alignment with the prognostic frame. In contrast, renegades are completely misaligned across all three frames.