The State of Scientific Knowledge Regarding Factors Associated With Terrorism

Sarah L. Desmarais, Joseph M. Simons-Rudolph, C. S. Brugh, Eileen Schilling, Chad Hoggan
{"title":"The State of Scientific Knowledge Regarding Factors Associated With Terrorism","authors":"Sarah L. Desmarais, Joseph M. Simons-Rudolph, C. S. Brugh, Eileen Schilling, Chad Hoggan","doi":"10.1037/tam0000090","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We conducted a systematic review of the contemporary scientific literature to (a) identify consensus, where it exists, regarding factors associated with membership in terrorist organizations and/or perpetration of terrorist attacks; (b) drive future research directions; and (c) inform evidence-based counterterrorism strategies. Systematic searches of 6 databases identified 205 articles that met inclusion criteria. Of these, 50 articles reported on findings of empirical research, 24 reported inferential statistics, and 6 of these compared characteristics of known terrorists to nonterrorists. Across various aspects of terrorism and terrorists (e.g., type of terrorist, attack type), articles rarely specified their focus. When examined factors typically focused on characteristics of the individual. Review of the empirical findings suggest 9 variables with at least some support for their association with terrorism: age, socioeconomic status, prior arrest, education, employment, relationship status, having a grievance, geographic locale, and type of geographic area. However, given the limitations of the research, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that any of these variables are empirically supported risk factors. Findings identified additional characteristics of an individual (i.e., country of birth, Islamic faith, military experience, foreign travel history, family or friend in a terrorist or extremist organization) and their environment (i.e., income inequality, media and government influences) that merit further evaluation. Findings also emphasized the importance of a triggering event. Finally, findings indicate that some widely accepted “risk” factors have limited empirical support for their association with terrorism. A focus on these factors might contribute to discrimination and reduce the effectiveness of counterterrorism strategies.","PeriodicalId":217565,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Threat Assessment and Management","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"71","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Threat Assessment and Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/tam0000090","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 71

Abstract

We conducted a systematic review of the contemporary scientific literature to (a) identify consensus, where it exists, regarding factors associated with membership in terrorist organizations and/or perpetration of terrorist attacks; (b) drive future research directions; and (c) inform evidence-based counterterrorism strategies. Systematic searches of 6 databases identified 205 articles that met inclusion criteria. Of these, 50 articles reported on findings of empirical research, 24 reported inferential statistics, and 6 of these compared characteristics of known terrorists to nonterrorists. Across various aspects of terrorism and terrorists (e.g., type of terrorist, attack type), articles rarely specified their focus. When examined factors typically focused on characteristics of the individual. Review of the empirical findings suggest 9 variables with at least some support for their association with terrorism: age, socioeconomic status, prior arrest, education, employment, relationship status, having a grievance, geographic locale, and type of geographic area. However, given the limitations of the research, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that any of these variables are empirically supported risk factors. Findings identified additional characteristics of an individual (i.e., country of birth, Islamic faith, military experience, foreign travel history, family or friend in a terrorist or extremist organization) and their environment (i.e., income inequality, media and government influences) that merit further evaluation. Findings also emphasized the importance of a triggering event. Finally, findings indicate that some widely accepted “risk” factors have limited empirical support for their association with terrorism. A focus on these factors might contribute to discrimination and reduce the effectiveness of counterterrorism strategies.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
关于恐怖主义相关因素的科学知识现状
我们对当代科学文献进行了系统的回顾,以(a)在存在共识的情况下,确定与恐怖组织成员资格和/或恐怖袭击行为相关的因素;(b)推动未来的研究方向;(c)为基于证据的反恐战略提供信息。系统检索6个数据库,发现205篇文章符合纳入标准。其中,50篇文章报道了实证研究的结果,24篇报道了推断统计,其中6篇比较了已知恐怖分子与非恐怖分子的特征。在恐怖主义和恐怖分子的各个方面(例如,恐怖分子的类型,袭击类型),文章很少指定他们的重点。当被检查时,这些因素通常集中在个体的特征上。对实证结果的回顾表明,有9个变量至少在一定程度上支持它们与恐怖主义的关联:年龄、社会经济地位、先前被捕、教育程度、就业、关系状况、有不满情绪、地理位置和地理区域类型。然而,鉴于研究的局限性,没有足够的证据表明这些变量中的任何一个都是经验支持的风险因素。调查结果确定了个人的其他特征(即出生国家、伊斯兰信仰、军事经历、国外旅行历史、恐怖主义或极端主义组织中的家人或朋友)及其环境(即收入不平等、媒体和政府影响)值得进一步评估。研究结果还强调了触发事件的重要性。最后,研究结果表明,一些被广泛接受的“风险”因素与恐怖主义的关联的经验支持有限。对这些因素的关注可能导致歧视并降低反恐战略的有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Risk and threat assessment instruments for violent extremism: A systematic review. Supplemental Material for Risk and Threat Assessment Instruments for Violent Extremism: A Systematic Review Supplemental Material for Differentiating Between Harmless and Harmful Threats: What Factors Increase Risk of Violence Following Threats? Target dispersion as a preapproach indicator in threat assessment and management. Supplemental Material for Risk Assessment Challenges in a Specialized Clinic for Individuals Referred for Violent Extremism
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1