Seaward Amber, Marchment Zoe, Clemmow Caitlin, Farnham Frank, Taylor Richard, Taperell Luc, Henley Sara, Boulter Sara, Townend Karen, Gill Paul
Department of Security and Crime Science, University College London, London, UK.
North London Forensic Services, Enfield, UK.
J Forensic Sci. 2025 Jan;70(1):222-236. doi: 10.1111/1556-4029.15648. Epub 2024 Nov 7.
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.
越来越多的研究对参与暴力和非暴力恐怖主义行为的风险因素和保护因素进行比较。这项探索性研究调查了这种区分是否足够，或者是否应该进一步细分为更具体的恐怖主义角色和行为。利用404份转介至英国一个专门处理暴力极端主义问题的预防中心的数据，该中心专注于心理健康及相关需求，我们比较了暴力和非暴力转介案例，然后是更具体的行为（易受极端主义影响、主动极端主义、国外参战和暴力策划）。双变量和多变量分析表明，超越暴力与非暴力的二元区分进行细分是有价值的，因为使用细分的行为集时出现了更多（且更详细）的关系。虽然性别在暴力和非暴力转介案例中没有差异，但女性更有可能因极端化易感性或潜在的国外参战而被转介。极右翼和极端伊斯兰主义转介案例在总体上的暴力程度并无差异，但伊斯兰主义转介案例在最暴力和最不暴力行为方面的比例都过高。人格障碍和发育障碍与暴力有关，细分行为为这些关联的驱动因素提供了详细的见解。这些探索性发现虽然有趣，但可能无法推广到我们的特定样本之外。相反，本研究的价值在于展示了细分暴力和非暴力之外的内容在研究以及最终在实践中的效用。结果表明，对于威胁评估具有明确的操作意义，即需要纳入一套更精细的风险因素，以帮助评估比总体恐怖主义参与更相关结果的风险。
