Assessing risks of violent extremism in depressive disorders: Developing and validating a new measure of Sympathies for Violent Protest and Terrorism

Contextualizing involvement in terrorist violence by considering non-significant findings: Using null results and temporal perspectives to better understand radicalization outcomes

Irrespective of discipline, the publication of null or non-significant findings is rare in the social sciences. For burgeoning fields like terrorism research, this is particularly problematic. As well as increasing the likelihood of Type II errors, the selective reporting of significant findings ultimately impedes progression, hindering comprehensive syntheses of evidence and enabling ill-supported lines of scientific enquiry to persist. This manuscript discusses several structural and individual-level variables which failed to produce significant, linear associations with involvement in terrorist violence in a dataset (N = 206) of right-wing and jihadist extremists active in Europe and North America. After considering methodological factors such as non-random distributions of missing data, we illustrate how certain variables are significantly associated with involvement in terrorist violence at particular periods in a radicalizing individual's lifespan, but not others (i.e., pre- or post-radicalization onset). Moreover, we demonstrate that while some static, binary constructs (such as whether or not a radicalizing individual was exposed to diverse viewpoints) are not associated with terrorist violence, their influence over time produces different associations. We conclude that radicalization may be less about individuals having pre-disposing risk factors, such as biographical stressors, and more about cognitive changes that allow individuals to re-evaluate their lives through the lens of an extremist ideology. We also underline the importance of taking a temporal, rather than static, perspective to better understand the variables associated with the outcomes of radicalization trajectories.

Mental disorder, psychological problems and terrorist behaviour: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The link between mental health difficulties and terrorist behaviour has been the subject of debate for the last 50 years. Studies that report prevalence rates of mental health difficulties in terrorist samples or compare rates for those involved and not involved in terrorism, can inform this debate and the work of those responsible for countering violent extremism.

Objectives

To synthesise the prevalence rates of mental health difficulties in terrorist samples (Objective 1-Prevalence) and prevalence of mental health disorders pre-dating involvement in terrorism (Objective 2-Temporality). The review also synthesises the extent to which mental health difficulties are associated with terrorist involvement compared to non-terrorist samples (Objective 3-Risk Factor).

Search Methods

Searches were conducted between April and June 2022, capturing research until December 2021. We contacted expert networks, hand-searched specialist journals, harvested records from published reviews, and examined references lists for included papers to identify additional studies.

Selection Criteria

Studies needed to empirically examine mental health difficulties and terrorism. To be included under Objective 1 (Prevalence) and Objective 2 (Temporality), studies had to adopt cross-sectional, cohort, or case-control design and report prevalence rates of mental health difficulties in terrorist samples, with studies under Objective 2 also needing to report prevalence of difficulties before detection or involvement in terrorism. For Objective 3 (Risk Factor) studies where there was variability in terrorist behaviour (involved vs. not involved) were included.

Data Collection and Analysis

Captured records were screened in DisillterSR by two authors. Risk of bias was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute checklists, and random-effects meta-analysis conducted in Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software.

Results

Fifty-six papers reporting on 73 different terrorist samples (i.e., studies) (n = 13,648) were identified. All were eligible for Objective 1. Of the 73 studies, 10 were eligible for Objective 2 (Temporality) and nine were eligible for Objective 3 (Risk Factor). For Objective 1, the life-time prevalence rate of diagnosed mental disorder in terrorist samples (k = 18) was 17.4% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 11.1%-26.3%]. When collapsing all studies reporting psychological problems, disorder, and suspected disorder into one meta-analyses (k = 37), the pooled prevalence rate was 25.5% (95% CI = 20.2%-31.6%). When isolating studies reporting data for any mental health difficulty that emerged before either engagement in terrorism or detection for terrorist offences (Objective 2: Temporality), the life-time prevalence rate was 27.8% (95% CI = 20.9%-35.9%). For Objective 3 (Risk Factor), it was not appropriate to calculate a pooled effect size due the differences in comparison samples. Odds ratios for these studies ranged from 0.68 (95% CI = 0.38-1.22) to 3.13 (95% CI = 1.87-5.23). All studies were assessed as having high-risk of bias which, in part, reflects challenges conducting terrorism research.

Author's Conclusions

This review does not support the assertion that terrorist samples are characterised by higher rates of mental health difficulties than would be expected in the general population. Findings have implications for future research in terms of design and reporting. There are also implications for practice with regards the inclusion of mental health difficulties as indicators of risk.

Not in Their Right Mind? Right-Wing Extremism Is Not a Mental Illness, but Still a Challenge for Psychiatry

Most research in psychiatry on extremism focuses on the question whether there is a connection between extremism and psychiatric diagnoses. In addition, practitioners are increasingly asked to take part in programs aimed at preventing and countering violent extremism by assessing risk for radicalization. However, an issue that remains largely unaddressed is that the rise of the far right in many countries during the last years poses a challenge for psychiatric services as working with right-wing patients can be a source of conflict for practitioners and patients alike. In this article, we assert that the narrow conceptual scope on psychological vulnerabilities and the practical focus on risk assessment contribute to processes of psychiatrization and limit the scope of research on right-wing extremism in psychiatry. By giving a brief overview of social research into right-wing extremism, the article argues that right wing beliefs should not be conceptualized as an expression of psychological vulnerabilities but rather as attempts to deal with conflict-laden social reality. Thus, a shift of perspective in psychiatric research on extremism is needed. On a conceptional level, the scope needs to be broadened to grasp the interplay of individual and social factors in radicalization with sufficient complexity. On a practical level, it is necessary to further investigate challenges for practitioners and institutions working with right-wing extremist patients.