​

To deepen the main article’s insight and practical value, psychological and neurodevelopmental factors should be regarded not as peripheral but as central to modern threat detection and prevention. This calls for an interdisciplinary approach, combining clinical psychology, trauma studies, and neurodiversity research with existing criminological and security frameworks. It reflects a growing consensus among experts advocating for a more nuanced and compassionate approach to counterterrorism—one that incorporates psychological vulnerabilities and neurodevelopmental diversity into both analysis and intervention. For instance, Salman and Al-Attar (2023a) have conducted extensive research on the intersection of neurodivergence and violent extremism, highlighting the importance of understanding neurodivergent traits in assessing vulnerability and resilience in individuals at risk of radicalisation. Their findings stress the critical need for trauma-informed, neurodiversity-aware systems within counter-extremism frameworks (Salman and Al-Attar, 2023b).

​

Key recommendations include:

1. Reframing Mental Health and Neurodiversity:
   Mental health conditions, trauma histories, and neurodivergent traits must be recognised as core components of a complex biopsychosocial profile that can increase vulnerability to high-risk behaviours, especially in digitally influenced environments. Psychological vulnerabilities should be fully integrated into threat assessments as potential accelerants of violence.

2. Trauma-Informed Threat Assessments:
   Incorporate trauma-aware practices in safeguarding and counter-terrorism efforts, including screening for adverse childhood experiences and PTSD, and training frontline professionals to identify trauma responses. Such approaches help distinguish behaviours rooted in past harm from ideologically driven aggression.

3. Multi-Disciplinary Psychological Profiling:
   Promote collaborative threat assessments involving behavioural analysts, psychologists, and safeguarding experts to detect early warning signs such as fantasies of revenge, sensory processing issues, or dissociative behaviours, strengthening pre-criminal intervention.

4. Tailored Interventions for Neurodivergent Individuals:
   Develop safeguarding protocols sensitive to neurodiverse individuals’ unique communication and sensory needs, avoiding misinterpretation of distress as threat, and providing appropriate support such as consistent key workers and low-stimulation settings.

5. Reference Psychological Models of Radicalisation:
   Ground these integrations in established models, such as Moghaddam’s ‘Staircase to Terrorism’ and research highlighting the prevalence of mental illness in certain offenders, to promote an empathetic and accurate prevention strategy.

Recognising radicalisation as both ideological and psychological advances prevention towards empathetic, precise, and effective interventions. Trauma-informed, neurodiversity-aware, and behaviourally attuned systems must become central to forward-looking threat mitigation strategies.

​

Suggested Additions or Revisions:

​

1. Reframe Mental Health and Neurodiversity as Core Risk and Protective Factors:
Update the narrative to reflect that mental health conditions, trauma histories, and neurodivergent traits are not secondary to ideological motivations. Instead, they form part of a complex biopsychosocial profile that can predispose some individuals to high-risk behaviour under certain stressors—especially in digital echo chambers or in the absence of adequate support structures (Corner & Gill, 2015; Weenink, 2019).

​

Rather than viewing psychological vulnerabilities as separate from security risks, we propose their full integration into a revised threat assessment framework—one that recognises how factors such as trauma, emotional dysregulation, and neurodevelopmental conditions may, under certain conditions and in particular contexts (including online environments), intersect with pathways to radicalisation. This approach avoids pathologising difference, instead aiming to understand individual vulnerabilities within broader social, cognitive, and behavioural ecosystems.

​

2. Include Trauma-Informed Threat Assessments:
Introduce a subsection that advocates for trauma-informed practices within safeguarding and counter-terrorism strategies. This could include:

​

• Assessing adverse childhood experiences (ACEs)

• Screening for PTSD or complex trauma

• Ensuring frontline professionals receive training in recognising trauma responses
   

Trauma-informed approaches can help distinguish between disruptive behaviours rooted in past harm and those stemming from premeditated, ideologically motivated aggression.

​

3. Promote Multi-Disciplinary Psychological Assessment
Emphasise the need for joint psychological-social threat assessments—where behavioural analysts, psychologists, and safeguarding leads co-develop individual case responses. This strengthens pre-criminal intervention by recognising early warning signs such as:

• Fantasies of control or revenge

• Sensory processing disorders or social misinterpretation

• Suicidal ideation or dissociative behaviour

​

4. Support Tailored Interventions for Neurodivergent Individuals:
Expand on the idea that neurodiverse individuals (e.g. those with autism spectrum conditions or ADHD) require context-sensitive safeguarding protocols. Highlight how their communication styles, information processing, and social interactions may be misinterpreted as threat indicators—without adequate training for staff.
 

Current frameworks risk criminalising neurodivergent distress as deviance. Preventative efforts must offer support structures—such as key worker continuity and low-stimulation environments—that are suited to the individual’s cognitive and sensory profile.

​

5. Reference Psychological Models of Radicalisation:
Ground these changes by briefly referencing key models:

• Moghaddam’s Staircase to Terrorism (2005): shows how personal discontent and psychological triggers escalate to violence.

• Gill and Corner’s research on lone actors (2017): shows high prevalence of mental illness among non-ideological attackers.

• Weine et al.’s behavioural threat assessment framework (2017): integrates mental health assessment within radicalisation prevention.

​

Conclusion:
In recognising that radicalisation is not solely ideological but often psychological, we move closer to a prevention model that is empathetic, accurate, and effective. Trauma-informed, neurodiversity-aware, and behaviourally attuned systems must become core to any forward-looking threat mitigation strategy.

​

 

Reference List

Borum, R., 2011. Radicalization into Violent Extremism I: A Review of Social Science Theories. Journal of Strategic Security, 4(4), pp.7–36.

​

Corner, E. and Gill, P., 2015. A false dichotomy? Mental illness and lone-actor terrorism. Law and Human Behavior, 39(1), pp.23–34.

​

Gill, P. and Corner, E., 2017. There and back again: The study of mental disorder and terrorist involvement. American Psychologist, 72(3), pp.231–241.

​

Moghaddam, F.M., 2005. The staircase to terrorism: A psychological exploration. American Psychologist, 60(2), pp.161–169.

​

Salman, N. and Al-Attar, Z., 2023a. Neurodivergence and extremism: Considerations for practice. [online] CREST Research. Available at: https://crestresearch.ac.uk/comment/neurodivergence-and-extremism-considerations-for-practice

​

Salman, N. and Al-Attar, Z., 2023b. A systematic review of neurodivergence, vulnerability and risk in the context of violent extremism. [online] CREST Research. Available at: https://www.crestresearch.ac.uk/resources/a-systematic-review-of-neurodivergence-vulnerability-and-risk-in-the-context-of-violent-extremism

​

Weenink, A.W., 2019. Behavioural problems and disorders among radicals in police files. Perspectives on Terrorism, 13(2), pp.78–92.

​

Weine, S., Eisenman, D., Jackson, L.T., Kinsler, J., Marcelin, L.H. and Polutnik, C., 2017. A behavioural approach to violent extremism prevention. Journal of Strategic Security, 10(2), pp.1–15.

​

​

​

​