An international tournament of risk factors for radical intentions: evidence from 40 countries.

INTRODUCTION

Understanding the risk factors linked to violent extremism remains a central challenge in radicalization research. This study examined which risk factors are most robustly associated with radical intentions-the willingness to use violence in support of an ideology.

METHODS

Using general-population samples from 40 countries (N = 10,407) and a complementary sample of incarcerated jihadists (N = 80), we placed the 12 strongest established correlates identified in Wolfowicz's (2021) meta-analysis into direct multivariate competition. Analyses included conditional random forests, multilevel models, and random-effects meta-analyses of country-specific estimates.

RESULTS

Across analytic methods and ideological targets, three risk factors consistently retained robust independent associations with radical intentions: moral neutralization (cognitive justification of violence), obsessive passion (rigid, ego-involving commitment), and perceived discrimination (subjective group-based injustice). These associations were stable within and across countries and largely invariant across ideological domains. In the incarcerated jihadist sample, moral neutralization and obsessive passion remained consistent correlates of radical intentions, whereas perceived discrimination showed a weaker and less certain association.

DISCUSSION: Collectively, these findings identify a moral-motivational-grievance combination that is robustly associated with radical intentions across ideologies. We situate this combination within major theoretical frameworks-including the 3N model, Moghaddam's staircase model, Borum's four-stage model, and social-movement frameworks-to clarify how these robust correlates align with constructs emphasized in theories of radicalization. The findings suggest testable prevention hypotheses concerning moral justifications for violence, rigid ideological engagement, and experiences of discrimination.