The concept of warning behaviors offers an additional perspective in threat assessment. Warning behaviors are acts which constitute evidence of increasing or accelerating risk. They are acute, dynamic, and particularly toxic changes in patterns of behavior which may aid in structuring a professional's judgment that an individual of concern now poses a threat - whether the actual target has been identified or not. They require an operational response. A typology of eight warning behaviors for assessing the threat of intended violence is proposed: pathway, fixation, identification, novel aggression, energy burst, leakage, directly communicated threat, and last resort warning behaviors. Previous research on risk factors associated with such warning behaviors is reviewed, and examples of each warning behavior from various intended violence cases are presented, including public figure assassination, adolescent and adult mass murder, corporate celebrity stalking, and both domestic and foreign acts of terrorism. Practical applications and future research into warning behaviors are suggested.

The conflicting reports and diagnoses presented by forensic psychiatrists at the trial of Anders Breivik did not address the threat posed by him prior to his crimes, that is, the warning behaviors that were evident that may have indicated accelerating patterns of risk during the period prior to his attacks on July 22, 2011. In this case study, the authors analyze his activities and mental state through the lens of 8 warning behaviors that may indicate proximal and dynamic patterns of risk for targeted violence: pathway, fixation, identification, novel aggression, energy burst, leakage, last resort, and directly communicated threats. Breivik was positive for 6 of these warning behaviors. Although such superordinate patterns have yet to be shown to predict targeted violence, and may be very difficult "signals" to detect amid the "noise" of other cases, they may prove more useful in the threat assessment of such targeted or intended violence toward others than the accuracy of psychiatric diagnosis, whether a personality disorder or a mental illness; the latter is most germane to the threat management of the case. Such warning behaviors, although etiologically nonspecific, are discussed in the context of current attempts to validate these dynamic patterns of concern to threat assessors.

A typology of 8 warning behaviors for targeted violence-dynamic and superordinate patterns which may indicate accelerating risk of violence-were tested in a small sample of German school shooters (n ϭ 9) and students of concern (n ϭ 31) to see if any warning behaviors would be significantly different between the groups. Five warning behaviors were found to occur with significantly greater frequency in the school shooters and discriminate between the samples: pathway, fixation, identification, novel aggression, and last resort. All effect sizes were large ( Ͼ .50). The findings are discussed in the context of school-shooting data from Germany and the United States and their implications for threat assessment.

Fourteen non-terrorist attackers of public figures in Germany between 1968 and 2004 were intensively studied, with a particular focus on warning behaviors, attack behaviors, and the relationship between psychiatric diagnosis, symptoms, and motivations for the assault. A large proportion of the attackers were severely mentally ill, and most likely to be in the potentially lethal rather than the non-lethal group. A new typology of seven warning behaviors was applied to the data, and all were present, most frequently fixation and pathway warning behavior, and least frequently a direct threat. Psychiatric diagnosis could be closely linked to motivation when analyzed at the level of symptom and content of thought, often delusional. Most of the attacks were directed at political figures, and the majority occurred after 1995.

Terrorism, especially lone-actor terrorism, is considered a major national security threat in both North America and Europe. The threat of terrorism has many faces and violence can arise from all ideological extremes. The authors present the theoretical model and current empirical validation of the Terrorist Radicalization Assessment Protocol (TRAP-18), a structured professional judgment instrument for those engaged in risk assessment of persons of concern for acts of terrorist violence. It can be used independently of a particular ideology. The TRAP-18 consists of 8 proximal warning behaviors and 10 distal characteristics, and has been designed to help prioritize the imminency of risk in specific cases, and therefore determine the intensity of monitoring and active management a case requires. Research has demonstrated excellent interrater reliability, and promising content, criterion, discriminant, and predictive validity. More research is in progress. The TRAP-18 is currently used by counterterrorism experts in North America and Europe. It offers a useful approach for professionals who may be assessing and treating individuals of national security concern. Zusammenfassung Terrorismus, insbesondere durch sog. Einzeltäter, gilt sowohl in Nordamerika als auch in Europa als wesentliche Bedrohung der nationalen Sicherheit. Die Bedrohung durch Terrorismus hat viele Gesichter, und Gewalt kann aus allen extremen Ideologien entstehen. Die Autoren stellen in diesem Beitrag den theoretischen Hintergrund und die aktuellen empirischen Erkenntnisse zum Terrorist Radicalization Assessment Protocol (TRAP-18) vor. Der TRAP-18 folgt dem Ansatz der strukturierten, professionellen Risikobeurteilung und ist zur Einschätzung von Personen geeignet, die für mögliche terroristische Gewaltakte infrage kommen. Dabei kann das Instrument unabhängig von einer bestimmten Ideologie angewendet werden. Der TRAP-18 besteht aus 8 proximalen und 10 distalen Faktoren. Er wurde entwickelt, um den Anwender in konkreten Fällen bei der Priorisierung eines sich abzeichnenden Risikos zu unterstützen und dadurch die Intensität des Monitorings und aktiven Managements in einem Fall festzulegen. Forschungsergebnisse weisen auf eine exzellente Interrater-Reliabilität sowie auf vielversprechende Inhalts-, Kriteriums-und Diskriminanzvalidität sowie prädiktive Validität hin. Weitere Studien sind aktuell in Arbeit. Derzeit nutzen Terrorismusexperten in Nordamerika und Europa den TRAP-18. Er kann als hilfreiche Herangehensweise dienen für Fachpersonen, die Personen bezüglich der Gefährdung der nationalen Sicherheit einschätzen bzw. behandeln müssen.Schlüsselwörter Strukturierte professionelle Risikobeurteilung · Warnverhalten · Terrorismus · Einzeltäter · Identifizierung · Bedrohungsmanagement

The typology of eight proximal warning behaviors for targeted violence was first introduced a decade ago. Since that time, a number of studies have continued to support its interrater reliability and its criterion, discriminant, and predictive validity. Among the warning behaviors, the three most validated in discriminating between attackers and nonattackers are pathway, identification, and last resort. All of the other warning behaviors—fixation, novel aggression, energy burst, leakage, and directly communicated threat—are found at various frequencies throughout all the samples tested to date, including intimate partner homicide perpetrators, school shooters, adult mass murderers, public figure attackers, and lone actor terrorists.

The purpose of this study was to assess nonprofessional and professional related stalking victimization in a selective sample of 542 Swiss police officers. The stalking lifetime prevalence rate was 5.2% (N ϭ 28). Four percent (n ϭ 22, 4.1%) were stalked by nonprofessionally related stalkers, and 1.1% (n ϭ 6) of the police officers were stalked for professional reasons. Lifetime stalking victimization among officers was 10% for women and 4% for men. Both groups showed more similarities than differences. A number of police officers were reluctant to inform their private and professional network about the stalking for various reasons, including embarrassment about stalking victimization. Only the minority of the stalking cases were officially reported to the justice system. Further implications are discussed.

Bedrohungsmanagement umfasst das Erkennen, Einschätzen und Entschärfen von gewaltbehafteten Entwicklungen. Die Fachstelle Forensic Assessment & Risk Management (FFA) ist seit 2014 wesentlicher Bestandteil der Strukturen des Kantonalen Bedrohungsmanagements in Zürich. Sie unterstützt ihre Auftraggeber (Staatsanwaltschaften, Polizeikorps, Allgemeinpsychiatrische Kliniken) in der Risikoeinschätzung und im Fallmanagement mit forensisch-psychologischem bzw. psychiatrischem Fachwissen. In diesem Artikel soll die Zusammenarbeit mit dem Gewaltschutz der Polizei näher beleuchtet sowie Erfahrungen und Erkenntnisse aus der konkreten Fallarbeit mit sogenannten GefährderInnen und den potenziell gefährdeten Personen diskutiert werden. Die Vorgehensweise der Fachstelle orientiert sich am Ansatz der Strukturierten Professionellen Risikobeurteilung (structured professional judgement, SPJ). Die Entwicklung eines stringenten Fallverständnisses und die Vorbereitung, Durchführung und Nachbereitung der mit der Polizei gemeinsam durchgeführten Gefährderansprachen nimmt eine zentrale Bedeutung im Prozess der Risikoeinschätzung und im Fallmanagement ein. Anhand eines häuslichen Gewalt-Fallbeispiels werden diese Punkte kurz illustriert. Präventionsbemühungen empirisch zu messen, stellt eine Herausforderung dar. Es werden Kriterien für die praxisbezogene und wissenschaftliche Überprüfung eines erfolgreichen Bedrohungsmanagement vorgeschlagen.