An Examination of the Structural Properties of the Extremism Risk Guidelines (ERG22+): A Structured Formulation Tool for Extremist Offenders

Powis, Beverly; Randhawa, Kiran; Bishopp, Darren

doi:10.1080/09546553.2019.1598392

Cited by 21 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Relatedly, status seeking has been described as a basic social-psychological factor fundamental to extremist radicalization and recruitment processes ( Dandurand, 2015 ). The Extremism Risk Guidelines (ERG22+), which is a SPJ guidance for the risk assessment of violent extremists, lists the ‘need for status’ as a risk factor that may increase individuals’ identification and engagement with an extremist ideology and/or group ( Powis et al, 2019 ).…”

Section: Study 1amentioning

confidence: 99%

Individual Differences in Personality Moderate the Effects of Perceived Group Deprivation on Violent Extremism: Evidence From a United Kingdom Nationally Representative Survey

Rottweiler

Gill

2022

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Numerous studies argue that perceived group deprivation is a risk factor for radicalization and violent extremism. Yet, the vast majority of individuals, who experience such circumstances do not become radicalized. By utilizing models with several interacting risk and protective factors, the present analysis specifies this relationship more concretely. In a large United Kingdom nationally representative survey (n = 1,500), we examine the effects of group-based relative deprivation on violent extremist attitudes and violent extremist intentions, and we test whether this relationship is contingent upon several individual differences in personality. The results show that stronger group-based injustices lead to increased support for and intentions to engage in violent extremism. However, some of the effects are much stronger for individuals who exhibit a stronger need for uniqueness and for status and who demonstrate higher levels of trait entitlement. Conversely, several effects are lessened for those individuals high in trait forgiveness, demonstrating a strong capacity for self-control and for those who are exerting critical as well as open-minded thinking styles, thus constituting buffering protective factors, which dampen the adverse effects of perceived group injustice on violent extremism. The results highlight the importance of considering (a) the interaction between individual dispositions and perceptions of contextual factors (b) the conditional and cumulative effects of various risk and protective factors and (c) the functional role of protective factors when risk factors are present. Collectively, these findings bring us one step closer to understanding who might be more vulnerable to violent extremism as well as how. Overall, the study suggests that preventing and countering violent extremism (P/CVE) programs must take account of the constellation of multiple factors that interact with (and sometimes enable or disable) one another and which can be targeted in preventions strategies.

show abstract

Section: Study 1amentioning

confidence: 99%

Individual Differences in Personality Moderate the Effects of Perceived Group Deprivation on Violent Extremism: Evidence From a United Kingdom Nationally Representative Survey

Rottweiler

Gill

2022

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Regardless of practice so far, to put significant expectations and weight onto a disaggregated category of 'mental health' in any new or existing terrorism-extremism-or 'radicalisation'-related risk or vulnerability assessment tool would hence seem ill advised (see also Powis, Randhawa, & Bishopp, 2019). It would also pose the possible hazard of unnecessarily increasing the stigma already associated with mental health difficulties, and of securitising such difficulties by associating an unspecified idea of 'mental health' with terrorism-related risk (see also Bhui, James, & Wessely, 2016;also McKendrick & Finch, 2017a, 2017bWeine et al, 2017).…”

Section: Risk Assessment and Mental Healthmentioning

confidence: 99%

Between vulnerability and risk? Mental health in UK counter-terrorism

Knudsen

2020

Behavioral Sciences of Terrorism and Political Aggression

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The relationship between terrorism and mental health has been a scholarly concern for decades. So far, the literature has concentrated on the relationship between terrorism and diagnosable disorders, and the prevalence of certain psychological traits among terrorist offenders. Meanwhile, the incorporation of perspectives regarding mental health in the operational space of counter-terrorism has been largely ignored. This article explores three current approaches to individual mental health in UK counter-terrorism: the use of 'appropriate adults' in terrorismrelated cases; the 'mental health hubs' introduced in 2016; and counter-terrorism-related risk and vulnerability assessments. The article argues that in light of the UK's new counter-terrorism strategy, these practices show an increasing merger between conceptualisations of vulnerabilities and risks in how UK counterterrorism approaches mental health.

show abstract

“…also Meyer, 2022); they are based, among other things, on literature analyses ("top-down," see, e.g., VERA, Pressman, 2009), including "reviews of the available empirical studies and case experience" (see Meloy & Yakeley, 2014;for TRAP-18; also see Meloy et al, 2012;Meloy et al, 2015;Meloy & Gill, 2016), on expert consultation (e.g., VERA-2, see Pressman & Flockton, 2012, VERA-2R, see Pressman et al, 2018, Sadowski et al, 2017 and EvIs, see Ullrich et al, 2019), or "casework with UK convicted terrorists, cross-referenced to the literature where this provides corroboration, but essentially evidenced by the offenders themselves" (e.g., ERG22 + , s. Lloyd & Dean, 2015). However, due to low base rates ("rare events," which are scattered globally), all instruments lack broad empirical foundations; a true evaluation of the instruments is (still) largely absent-in fact it may be fundamentally unfeasable (see Scarcella et al, 2016; on the validation history and interrater reliability of TRAP-18, see RMA, 2019 andMeloy, 2020; on interrater reliability of ERG22 + , see Powis et al, 2019aPowis et al, , 2019b; on its construct validity, see Powis et al, 2019aPowis et al, , 2019b. Users should always keep this in the back of their minds.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk Assessment—the Key to More Security? Factors, Tools, and Practices in Dealing with Extremist Individuals

Höffler

Meyer

Möller

2022

Eur J Crim Policy Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, risk assessments for violent extremism have attracted great interest from both scholars and practitioners, and many assessment tools have been developed. After a critical review of this development, the paper examines differences and similarities between the indicators of various violent extremist risk assessment tools and checklists. Based on an interview study with 34 experts in the field of Counter Violent Extremism and 24 (formerly) radicalized persons from the right-wing radical and Salafi-Jihadist spectrum, risk factors were identified and the findings merged and compared with already existing risk assessment tools. The paper will present results especially regarding the risk signals’ occurrence and applicability in the German context. One key finding is that existing assessment tools insufficiently take into account personal contacts in the radicalization process. Thus, the paper—based on the results of a social network analysis—draws attention to the potential and importance of networks. The paper concludes by outlining the potential of risk assessment, suggesting improvements, and raising awareness of the limits and deficits of these tools. The paper thus scientifically addresses the challenge of more security through efficient risk assessment and management. It offers a list of radicalization process characteristics (ARISNA: Assessment of Radicalized Individuals including Social Network Analysis), which is designed to help users analyze the risk of radicalization based on concrete traits of a person and their environment.

show abstract

An Examination of the Structural Properties of the Extremism Risk Guidelines (ERG22+): A Structured Formulation Tool for Extremist Offenders

Cited by 21 publications

References 0 publications

Individual Differences in Personality Moderate the Effects of Perceived Group Deprivation on Violent Extremism: Evidence From a United Kingdom Nationally Representative Survey

Individual Differences in Personality Moderate the Effects of Perceived Group Deprivation on Violent Extremism: Evidence From a United Kingdom Nationally Representative Survey

Between vulnerability and risk? Mental health in UK counter-terrorism

Risk Assessment—the Key to More Security? Factors, Tools, and Practices in Dealing with Extremist Individuals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About