risk and protective factors

risk of what and why? disaggregating pathways to extremist behaviours in individuals susceptible to violent extremism

best practice in violent extremist risk assessment and management recommends adopting a structured professional judgement (spj) approach. the spj approach identifies relevant, evidence-based risk and protective factors and requires experts to articulate hypotheses about a) what the person might do (risk of what), and b) how they've come to engage in the concerning behaviour (and why) (logan 2021) to inform who, needs to do what, and when. whilst the field continues to move towards adopting an spj approach, there remains a gap between what is known empirically and what is needed in practice. we apply psychometric network modelling to a sample of 485 individuals entered into channel, the uk's preventing and countering violent extremism (p/cve) program. we model the system of interactions from which susceptibility to violent extremism emerges, providing data driven evidence which speaks to risk of what and why. our research highlights a way to generate evidence which captures the multifactorial nature of susceptibility to violent extremism, to support professional decision making in the context of an spj approach.

beyond binary: analyzing closed-source data to compare specific roles and behaviors within violent and nonviolent terrorist involvement

increasingly, studies compare risk and protective factors for involvement in violent and nonviolent terrorist behaviors. this exploratory study investigates whether this distinction is sufficient, or whether it should be disaggregated further into more granular terrorist roles and behaviors. using data on 404 referrals to a uk countering violent extremism prevent hub specializing in mental health and associated needs, we compare violent and nonviolent referrals, and then more specific behaviors (vulnerability, proactive extremism, foreign fighting, and violence planning). bivariate and multivariate analyses show there is value in disaggregating beyond the binary violence versus nonviolence distinction, as more (and more detailed) relationships emerged when using the disaggregated set of behaviors. while gender did not differentiate violent and nonviolent referrals, women were more likely to be referred for radicalization vulnerability or potential foreign fighting. extreme right-wing and extreme islamist referrals were no more or less violent overall, but islamist referrals were disproportionately referred for both the most and least violent behaviors. personality and developmental disorders were associated with violence, and disaggregated behaviors provided detailed insight into the drivers of these associations. these exploratory findings, while interesting, likely do not generalize beyond our specific sample. instead, this study's value lies in demonstrating the utility for both research and, eventually, practice of disaggregating beyond violence and nonviolence. the results demonstrate clear operational implications for threat assessment in the need to include a more refined set of risk factors to aid in assessing risk of more relevant outcomes than terrorist involvement overall.

distinct patterns of incidental exposure to and active selection of radicalizing information indicate varying levels of support for violent extremism

exposure to radicalizing information has been associated with support for violent extremism. it is, however, unclear whether specific information use behavior, namely, a distinct pattern of incidental exposure (ie) to and active selection (as) of radicalizing content, indicates stronger violent extremist attitudes and radical action intentions. drawing on a representative general population sample (n = 1509) and applying latent class analysis, we addressed this gap in the literature. results highlighted six types of information use behavior. the largest group of participants reported a near to zero probability of both ie to and as of radicalizing material. two groups of participants were characterized by high or moderate probabilities of incidental exposure as well as a low probability of active selection of radicalizing content. the remaining groups displayed either low, moderate, or high probabilities of both ie and as. importantly, we showed between-group differences regarding violent extremist attitudes and radical behavioral intentions. individuals reporting near zero or high probabilities for both ie to and as of radicalizing information expressed the lowest and strongest violent extremist attitudes and willingness to use violence respectively. groups defined by even moderate probabilities of as endorsed violent extremism more strongly than those for which the probability for incidental exposure was moderate or high but as of radicalizing content was unlikely.