A wide range of studies investigating the nature and determinants of radicalisation, and terrorist-related behaviour exist. These, in turn, have influenced theory, policy and practice in areas concerned with violent extremism prevention, disruption and management. As such interventions become more common, debates rage within mental health professions about the role mental health practitioners should play in countering violent extremism. This systematic review assesses the impact of mental health problems upon attitudes, intentions and behaviours in the context of radicalisation and terrorism. We identified 25 studies that measured rates of mental health problems across 28 samples. The prevalence rates are heterogenous and range from 0% to 57%. If we pool the results of those samples (n=19) purely focused upon confirmed diagnoses where sample sizes are known (n=1705 subjects), the results suggest a rate of 14.4% with a confirmed diagnosis. Where studies relied upon wholly, or in some form, upon privileged access to police or judicial data, diagnoses occurred 16.96% of the time (n=283 subjects). Where studies were purely focused upon open sources (n=1089 subjects), diagnoses were present 9.82% of the time. We then explore (a) the types and rates of mental health disorders identified (b) comparison/control group studies (c) studies that explore causal roles of mental health problems and (d) other complex needs.
Improvements have been made in identifying the prevalence of risk factors/indicators for violent extremism. A consistent problem is the lack of base rates. How to develop base rates is of equal concern. This study has two aims: (i) compare two methods for developing base rates; the Unmatched Count Technique (UCT) and direct questioning, (ii) generate base rates in a general population sample and compare these to a sample of lone-actor terrorists (n = 125). We surveyed 2108 subjects from the general population. Participants were recruited from an online access panel and randomly assigned to one of three conditions; direct survey, control, or UCT. Survey items were based on a loneactor terrorist codebook developed from the wider literature. Direct questioning was more suitable under our study conditions where UCT resulted in deflation effects. Comparing the base rates identified a number of significant differences: (i) lone-actor terrorists demonstrated propensity indicators related to a cognitive susceptibility, and a crime-and/or violence-supportive morality more often; the general sample demonstrated protective factors more often, (ii) lone-actor terrorists demonstrated situational indicators related to a crime-and/or violence-supportive morality more often, whereas the general sample experienced situational stressors more often, (iii) lone-actor terrorists demonstrated indicators related to exposure to extremism more often. Results suggest there are measurable differences in the prevalence of risk factors between lone-actor terrorists and the general population. However, no single factor "predicts" violent extremism. This bears implications for our understanding of the interrelation of risk and protective factors, and for the risk assessment of violent extremism.
Many early published analyses of the terrorist placed psychopathy as the core explanatory variable for terrorist behaviour. This speculative opinion was derived mainly from popular culture, and the desire to attribute mental disorders to those committing such violent acts.Poor research designs and a lack of empiricism ultimately undermined these arguments in favour of terrorism being rooted in disorders of personality. Multiple studies supporting psychopathic and personality-level explanations were conducted in the absence of rigorous clinical diagnostic procedures. Despite the methodological issues, concluding remarks from this research continues to hold instinctive appeal across the research field. This incentivises a need for a rigorous synthesis of the evidence base. The objective of this systematic review is to assess the impact of personality upon attitudes, intentions, and behaviours in the context of radicalisation and terrorism. This paper follows the same systematic process as the Gill et al.paper in this special issue. However, we use the model to interrogate the existing empirical literature on personality and terrorism in terms of its coverage, common themes, methodological strengths and weaknesses and implications. The search strategy for the systematic review is based on the Campbell Collaboration method. Results and their implications are discussed.
Purpose. Research assessing violent extremist risk factors thus far largely ignored the role of cognitive processes. Zmigrod and colleagues (2019a) addressed this gap and presented first systematic evidence that lower levels of cognitive flexibility predict a higher willingness to fight and, ultimately, die for a national ingroup. This finding has important theoretical and practical implications. In order to strengthen the potential contribution of Zmigrod et al.'s work, we will conduct a registered direct replication of Study 1. Extending the original study, we further examine whether the documented relationship still holds when a self-report measure for cognitive flexibility is introduced and when analyses control for identity fusion. We also investigate if cognitive inflexibility solely predicts violent or also normative pro-group behaviour intentions.Methods. Following Zmigrod, Rentfrow, and Robbins (2019a), we will administer a cross-sectional survey study. Participants (N = 1,378) report their willingness to fight, die, and sacrifice themselves for the ingroup and complete the Remote Associates as well as Wisconsin Card Sorting tests. Afterwards, additional measures of self-reported cognitive flexibility, identity fusion, and normative pro-group behaviour are assessed.Results. To be completed. Conclusions. To be completed.A burgeoning body of research highlights numerous violent extremist risk factors that point, amongst others, to the role of exposure to radicalizing actors, critical life events, and grievances (e.g.
Threat and risk assessment are increasingly an integral part of counterterrorism. This process currently relies heavily on the judgment of professionals, who play a vital role in a potentially high-stakes environment. However, thus far, little research focuses on the professionals themselves. This study provides insight into the experiences and opinions of professional threat and risk assessors, particularly regarding how they conduct terrorism assessments, their expectations for training, and the experience and characteristics of those that conduct them. An online survey solicited quantitative and qualitative responses from a sample of 41 professional threat assessors. The findings highlight the training and experience required differs greatly across different disciplines involved, and the importance of considering the context in which threat and risk assessments takes place. These findings also highlight cognitive abilities and personality characteristics that may be desirable for risk assessors in this context and provide avenues for further research to examine the role of these factors in risk assessment.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.