Department of Security and Crime Science, University College London, London, U.K.
J Forensic Sci. 2020 May;65(3):865-881. doi: 10.1111/1556-4029.14282. Epub 2020 Jan 30.
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 lone-actor 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.
已经在识别暴力极端主义的风险因素/指标的普遍性方面取得了一些进展。一个始终存在的问题是缺乏基准率。如何制定基准率同样令人关注。本研究有两个目的:(i)比较两种制定基准率的方法:未匹配计数技术(UCT)和直接询问;(ii)在一般人群样本中生成基准率,并将这些基准率与单独行动的恐怖分子样本(n=125)进行比较。我们调查了来自一般人群的 2108 名受试者。参与者是从在线访问小组中招募的,并随机分配到直接调查、对照组或 UCT 三种条件之一。调查项目基于从更广泛的文献中开发的单独行动的恐怖分子行为准则。在我们的研究条件下,直接询问更为合适,因为 UCT 导致了低估效应。比较基准率确定了一些显著差异:(i)单独行动的恐怖分子表现出与认知易感性、犯罪和/或暴力支持性道德相关的倾向性指标更为常见;一般样本则表现出更多的保护因素;(ii)单独行动的恐怖分子表现出与犯罪和/或暴力支持性道德相关的情境指标更为常见,而一般样本则更多地经历情境压力;(iii)单独行动的恐怖分子表现出与接触极端主义相关的指标更为常见。结果表明,单独行动的恐怖分子和一般人群之间在风险因素的普遍性方面存在可衡量的差异。然而,没有单一因素“预测”暴力极端主义。这对我们理解风险和保护因素的相互关系以及暴力极端主义的风险评估具有重要意义。