What makes someone transition from an ordinary citizen to an extremist, and what distinguishes those who go on to commit terrorist violence from those who do not? This new study by Bart Schuurman and Sarah L. Carthy explores this question by comparing radicalised individuals with the general population, offering insights into how extremists—whether they act violently or not—differ from broader society. By analysing data from the (Non-) Involvement in Terrorist Violence (NITV) dataset, the research uncovers key patterns that may help refine efforts to prevent radicalisation and terrorism.
A fundamental finding of the study is that radicalised individuals are predominantly male. While this is consistent with broader trends in violent crime, the proportion of men among extremists and terrorists is far higher than in the general population. This suggests that gender may play an important role in the pathways to radicalisation, though the precise mechanisms remain complex.
Another key distinction is political alienation. Radicalised individuals are significantly more likely to feel that their views are not represented within the political system. This lack of perceived political voice appears to be an enabling factor in the cognitive shifts that support radicalisation. However, the study also highlights that those who do feel a degree of political representation are less likely to escalate into terrorism. This finding suggests that even minimal political engagement may act as a buffer against violent extremism.
Economic factors also stand out. Compared to the general population, radicalised individuals—especially those who engage in terrorism—are far more likely to be unemployed. While previous research has debated the role of socioeconomic deprivation in radicalisation, this study indicates that unemployment is a meaningful risk factor. The findings also reveal that individuals who abandon tertiary education are more likely to engage in terrorism, though this trend is more pronounced for terrorists than for extremists who stop short of violence. These patterns suggest that maintaining pro-social commitments such as education and employment may serve as protective factors against radicalisation.
The study also sheds light on the role of childhood adversity. Extremists and terrorists were twice as likely as the general population to have experienced adverse childhood experiences, such as neglect or abuse. While many people who face such difficulties do not radicalise, the overrepresentation of childhood adversity in this group suggests that long-term vulnerabilities may contribute to the likelihood of extremism.
Mental illness is another area where assumptions are challenged. The study finds that, overall, radicalised individuals are not significantly more likely to suffer from mental disorders than the general population. However, when specific disorders are examined, some patterns emerge. For instance, narcissistic personality disorder and depressive disorders appear at slightly higher rates among terrorists than among extremists who do not engage in violence. While this does not imply that mental illness causes terrorism, it highlights the importance of understanding the psychological profiles of those who escalate to violence.
One of the starkest findings concerns violent tendencies. A significant proportion of terrorists—far more than the general population—had expressed a desire to harm others before committing their acts. Additionally, both extremists and terrorists were more likely than average to have prior violent criminal records. This aligns with the argument that previous exposure to violence may lower the psychological and social barriers to committing acts of terrorism.
These findings have practical implications. For policymakers and practitioners working to prevent radicalisation, the study suggests that tailored interventions may be more effective than broad, one-size-fits-all approaches. Addressing political alienation, promoting employment and education, and identifying early warning signs such as violent tendencies or expressions of intent to harm could all contribute to more effective prevention strategies. Furthermore, while mental illness is not a primary factor in radicalisation, ensuring proper psychological support for individuals displaying specific risk factors could be beneficial.
Ultimately, the study reinforces the idea that radicalisation is not a uniform process. Some individuals adopt extremist beliefs without ever engaging in violence, while others cross the threshold into terrorism. Understanding these distinctions is crucial for designing targeted interventions that not only reduce the risk of terrorism but also mitigate broader social polarisation. The challenge remains in translating these insights into actionable policies that balance security concerns with the need to uphold civil liberties and social cohesion.