Group-based violence: Unique factors to consider in the assessment and management of risk

The sovereign citizen movement is one of the largest antigovernment nationalism or domestic terrorist collectives in the United States. In the last decade, over a dozen public officials were injured or killed by individuals adhering to sovereign citizen ideology. The Terrorist Radicalization Assessment Protocol (TRAP-18;Meloy & Gill, 2016;Meloy, Habermeyer, & Guldimann, 2015) is a collection of 18 behavior-based warning signs for terror incidents which has been used to assess primarily international terrorism samples. In this study, the researchers applied the TRAP-18 to both violent and nonviolent incidents involving sovereign citizen members. Using chi-square tests for independence and a logistic regression analysis, the researchers found support for the TRAP-18. The sum of the TRAP-18 scores was able to postdict violent outcomes within the events included within the study. This important finding should guide future research on the use of the TRAP-18 involving sovereign citizens' collectives and other domestic groups who exhibit violence. Public Significance StatementThe present study finds the Terrorist Radicalization Assessment Protocol (TRAP-18) tool was useful in differentiating violent domestic terrorism incidents from those that did not escalate to violence. It advances the concept that appropriately trained professionals may be able to identify warning behaviors in order to predict and prevent violent incidents.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Postdicting violence with sovereign citizen actors: An exploratory test of the TRAP-18.

Challacombe¹,

Lucas²

2019

“…In 2010, Singh, Serper, Reinharth, and Fazel (2011) identified more than 120 risk assessment tools for clinical and/or professional judgment. Tools that might be relevant in terms of extremism include the Multi-Level Guidelines (MLG: Cook, 2014; Cook, Hart, & Kropp, 2013), the Violent Extremism Risk Assessment (VERA-2: Pressman, 2009; Pressman & Flockton, 2014), the Extremist Risk Guidelines (ERG-22+: Lloyd & Dean, 2015), and, specifically for lone actors, the Terrorist Radicalization Assessment Protocol (TRAP-18: Meloy & Gill, 2014). The MLG comprises 20 risk factors with four nested domains (individual, individual-group, group, and group-societal), the VERA-2 31 factors, and the ERG 22+ (22 factors are identified but it is acknowledged that more may be added).…”

Section: Empirical Studies Of Violent Versus Nonviolent Extremismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Violent versus nonviolent actors: An empirical study of different types of extremism.

Knight

Woodward

Lancaster

2017

It is notoriously difficult to distinguish between those who simply espouse radical beliefs and those who are prepared to commit acts of extremist-related violence. This poses a problem for those responsible for counter terrorism (CT) needing to discriminate between the two. The present study adopted an empirical approach to compare violent extremists (VEs) and nonviolent extremists (NVEs). In-depth case studies on 40 extremist individuals were developed and analyzed for key themes, subthemes and underlying variables. VEs and NVEs were compared to understand where similarities and differences lie. Identified were a number of variables that distinguish between VEs and NVEs; this has implications for CT in terms of prevent, pursue, and intervention. Results can, for example, assist those responsible for CT and law enforcement to focus on variables that distinguish between VEs and NVEs to identify those who are most high risk (i.e., likely to actively facilitate and/or commit acts of extreme violence) and focus their efforts on these, rather than on those who are not. Results can also inform CT practitioners and policymakers on the development of tailored interventions for different types of extremist individuals and groups.

“…However, this largely does not appear to have been examined from the perspective of users of the tool. This may have been tested during the development of individual tools (as noted for the MLG; Cook, 2014), but it could warrant further examination, particularly in comparative evaluations of tools.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Despite these tools’ heavy reliance on professional judgment, limited research focuses on the assessors themselves. Where it exists, it typically examines interrater reliability (e.g., Beardsley & Beech, 2013; Brugh, 2019; Challacombe & Lucas, 2019; Cook, 2014; Egan et al, 2016; Hart, Cook, Pressman, Strang, & Lim, 2017; Powis, Randhawa-Horne, Elliott, & Woodhams, 2019; Pressman, Duits, Rinne, & Flockton, 2016). While most studies focus on reliability between a small number of matched raters (usually researchers or tool developers), Powis et al’s (2019) examination of the ERG22+ using “typical users” indicates there may be more variation between ratings when these tools are applied in the field.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A survey of risk and threat assessors: Processes, skills, and characteristics in terrorism risk assessment.

Salman¹,

Gill²

2020

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.