Extremism and radicalization towards violence are urgent topics in many countries. Numerous research projects are carried out, of which many focus on risk factors only. In contrast, this article contains a systematic review of the rare international research on protective factors. After screening more than 2,000 documents, we found 17 reports containing 21 analyses that specifically addressed potential protective effects and provided quantitative data. Most studies addressed religious/ethnic extremism; far-right, far-left, and mixed forms were less frequent. Thirty different protective factors showed significant effects. Many were found in single analyses, but there were various replicated factors such as self-control, adherence to law, acceptance of police legitimacy, illness, positive parenting behavior, non-violent significant others, good school achievement, non-violent peers, contact to foreigners, and a basic attachment to society. Most findings are similar to what we know from more general research on youth violence, but there are also some protective factors that seem to be more specific, particularly with regard to religious/ethnic extremism. In conclusion, it is suggested to relate the topic of extremism and violent radicalization more strongly with other fields of developmental and life course criminology. For further progress on this path, more research on protective factors and integrated theoretical concepts are needed. This will also contribute to effective prevention.

No abstract

Violent extremism research is still lacking a sound empirical basis for the validation of assessment instruments. Yet there is a growing need for these instruments to assess the dangerousness of individuals, but also the success of interventions. By analysing prisoner files of one female and 39 male inmates (average age 28.83 years, SD = 7.58) with administratively assigned Islamism-related security labels in Bavarian prisons, we tried to clarify two questions: Firstly, is it possible to collect relevant data from prisoner files drawing on risk assessment procedures? Secondly, how do inmates associated with the Salafist scene (security label “Salafist scene”) differ from those who are apparently involved with terror networks (security label “terror”), and do these differences predict the risk they pose? Our results suggest that files are a valuable, though not perfect data source for individual assessment and research. The two groups defined by the labels differ significantly in their biographies, mental health, and behaviour. Conclusions pertaining to biographical background factors, risk assessment, and management are discussed.

No abstract

Do radicalized Muslim prisoners differ from non-radicalized Muslim prisoners with regard to Kruglanski’s (2004) quest for significance (QFS), need for (cognitive) closure (NFC), and their frame alignment regarding ideological and religious issues? To answer this research question N = 26 male inmates from Bavarian prisons were interviewed. The radicalized prisoners or extremists (n = 13) had been identified as Salafi or Jihadi adherents by the Bavarian Office for the Protection of the Constitution (Bayerischer Verfassungsschutz) and therefore had a security note. The comparison group were non-radicalized Muslim inmates (n = 13); the vast majority had a migration background. The audio files of the interviews were transcribed and Mayring’s (2010) qualitative content analysis was applied. The obtained interview material was analyzed twice (each time with a different focus) for psychological differences and characteristics between the two groups of Muslim prisoners. In the first analysis, the interviews were investigated with regard to conspiracy theories, dualistic conception of the world, political sensitivity, collective and individual victimization and religious rigidity. Extremists exhibited a stronger frame alignment with respect to general conspiracy theories, dualistic conception of the world, collective victimization, and political sensitivity. Results also substantiate the idea that extremists exhibit more rigid religious behaviors than non-extremist Muslim prisoners. Contrary to our expectations, the two groups did not differ in various biographical features, for example whether they grew up in a family that actively practiced their religion. In the second analysis, we found that although the overall pattern regarding QFS turned out as expected, the radicalized inmates did not achieve higher values than their non-radicalized counterparts. However, we obtained substantial differences for subcategories of QFS. The extremist prisoners reported more norm violations as a trigger for QFS and more opportunities for gaining significance than non-extremists. This was also true for non-legitimate as well as non-criminal opportunities to gain significance. There was a substantial difference between extremists and non-extremists regarding the overall NFC characteristics. Radicalized prisoners tend to avoid ambiguous situations or uncertainty, they prefer clear, structured processes and firm beliefs. The results suggest that it is possible to differentiate non-radicalized from radicalized Muslims as they showed less quest for significance, less need for closure, less political sensitivity and a less rigorous view on religion.