Using the Moral‐Situational‐Action Model of Extremist Violence (MSA‐EV) to Assess Fluctuating Levels of Risk in Women: The Relevance of Risk, Promotive, and Protective Factors

Our research examines the Moral Situational Action Model of Extremist Violence (MSA-EV) in differentiating radicalized women who are likely to proceed to acts of lethal violence from those who are not using an additional risk, protective, and promotive paradigm that has not been applied to this data previously Using the same unique dataset of 300 female terrorists, we found that risk factors were more common than promotive and protective factors but that all three elements were identified across all three domains of the MSA-EV. The propensity domain included 14 risk factors, seven protective factors, and five promotive factors; the mobilization domain 25 risk factors, one protective factor, and three promotive factors; and the action-capacity-building domain nine risk factors, three protective factors, and three promotive factors. As suggested by Wikström, these three categories of predictive variables were not cumulative in nature. Rather, they captured distinctive types of information that could be used differentially to inform investigations, interventions, and issues of primary prevention. These findings offer support to Farrington's (2016) description of the RPP paradigm as one that allowed researchers to "[l]ink explanation and prevention, link fundamental and applied research, and link scholars, policymakers, and practitioners."