Similar crimes, similar behaviors? Comparing lone-actor terrorists and public mass murderers

Gill, Paul; Silver, James; Horgan, John; Corner, Emily; Bouhana, N

doi:10.21428/cb6ab371.c9d33c3f

Cited by 3 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our review reports higher rates of mental disorder than reported in Gill and colleagues' (2021) synthesis and observes the same trend with regards of lone actors compared to other forms of terrorism. The higher rates reported here may reflect a more inclusive approach where we permitted terms like ‘confirmed diagnosis’, and reference to ‘disorder’ and diagnostic criteria as evidence that authors were counting medically diagnosed disorders.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Sarma

Carthy

Cox

2022

Campbell Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

“…The latter provided prevalence data for the full sample and the most complete data on mental health difficulties. We also excluded Gill et al (2021) Similar crimes, similar behaviours? and Horgan and colleagues (2016) comparison of lone actors and mass murderers ( Across the Universe? )…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Sarma

Carthy

Cox

2022

Campbell Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The average age of lone‐actor terrorists in this study (34.7 years) falls within the range (29–35 years) reported by other groups [4–8]. However, our findings are at odds with studies which show that lone‐actor terrorists are more likely than group actors to be single, unemployed, to have higher educational attainment, or poor financial status [7, 8, 24]. They are in agreement, however, with those studies [5] which found no statistically significant differences between lone and group actors in their criminal history.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

“…Gill et al’s [8] comparison of lone actors with mass murderers indicated that lone actors were more likely to participate in group activities, including contact with co‐ideologues, attempting to recruit others, or having recently joined a movement. Bright et al [9] too suggest that lone‐actor terrorists are connected to a network of individuals who provide logistic and ideological support.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Distinguishing lone from group actor terrorists: A comparison of attitudes, ideologies, motivations, and risks

Dhumad

Candilis

Cleary

et al. 2022

Journal of Forensic Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The increasing recognition of the risks posed by lone‐actor terrorists provides the impetus for understanding the psychosocial and ideological characteristics that distinguish lone from group actors. This study examines differences between lone and group actor terrorists in two domains: (i) attitudes toward terrorism, ideology, and motivation for terrorist acts; and (ii) empirically derived risk factors for terrorism. Using a cross‐sectional research design and primary source data from 160 men convicted of terrorism in Iraq, this study applied bivariate and logistic regression analyses to assess group differences. It tested the hypothesis that there are no statistically significant differences between the groups. Bivariate analyses revealed that lone actors were less likely than group actors, to be unemployed, to cite personal or group benefit as the main motives for terrorist activity, and to believe that acts of terrorism achieved their goals. Regression analysis indicated that having an authoritarian father was the only factor that significantly predicted group membership, with group actors three times more likely to report this trait. Lone actors and group actors are almost indistinguishable except for certain differences in attitudes, motives, employment, and having an authoritarian father.

show abstract

“…Adult mass murder studies have also seen an evolution over the past 20 years, from relatively small sample and case studies (Hempel, Meloy, & Richards, 1999; Meloy, 1997; Mullen, 2004) to larger sample studies (Adler, 2000; Lankford, 2015; Stone, 2015; Peter & Bogerts, 2012), to studies comparing ideological and nonideological mass killers (Gill, Horgan, & Deckert, 2014; Gill, Silver, Horgan, Corner, & Bouhana, 2016; Lankford, 2013;). Some single case studies with a particular focus on threat assessment were also completed (Hoffmann & Allwinn, 2016; Meloy, Habermeyer, & Guldimann, 2015).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

German mass murderers and their proximal warning behaviors.

Allwinn¹,

Hoffmann²,

Meloy

2019

Journal of Threat Assessment and Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Similar crimes, similar behaviors? Comparing lone-actor terrorists and public mass murderers

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

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

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

Distinguishing lone from group actor terrorists: A comparison of attitudes, ideologies, motivations, and risks

German mass murderers and their proximal warning behaviors.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About