The false relationship between violent radicalization and mental health
Summary
In the field of studying the processes of violent radicalization that can lead to some type of terrorism, one of the questions that has generated debate in both public opinion and academic circles is whether there is a direct relationship between mental health disorders and vulnerability to being radicalized or participating in terrorist acts . It is essential, from a scientific perspective, to distinguish between simplistic hypotheses and solid empirical evidence, since the attribution of individual psychological causes can lead to both unjustified stigmatization and ineffective prevention policies.
Scientific evidence on mental disorders and terrorism
Several studies have addressed this issue through systematic reviews and empirical research, and the emerging academic consensus is that a general causal association between mental health and violent radicalization or terrorism cannot be established. In a systematic review of the literature (Trimbur et al., 2021), researchers examined over 2,800 records and concluded that, although some violent radicalized individuals or terrorists presented with psychiatric diagnoses, no consistent or significant correlation can be stated between mental disorders and the radicalization process . Furthermore, the methodological quality of the studies is heterogeneous and often weak, which limits the strength of clinical and epidemiological conclusions.
This same body of evidence shows that the prevalence of mental health disorders among radicalized individuals or terrorists is variable (for example, ranging from 6% to 41% in radicalized populations and from 3.4% to 48.5% among terrorists, with higher trends in lone individuals than in members of organized groups). However, these data do not demonstrate causality or a specific clinical profile that can serve as a unique predictor of radicalization (Sarma et al. 2022).
The role of psychological and social factors in radicalization
Some community studies suggest that certain symptoms (such as depression, anxiety or post-traumatic stress) may be associated with sympathizing with extremist or violent ideas. However, this relationship is complex , conditioned by multiple variables (such as age, social context, life experiences or criminal history) and does not imply that mental health is a determining factor or sufficient to explain radicalization (Bhui et al. 2020).
The psychosocial and criminological literature emphasizes that radicalization is a multifactorial process: ideological, identity, community, political, economic, and situational factors interact with people's personal histories. Explanations that reduce radicalization to an individual "mental disorder" are not only scientifically unfounded, but may also obscure the most relevant structural causes and opportunities for prevention and intervention.
What should we know about stigma?
Implications for research and public policy
From criminology and the study of violent behavior, what emerges from current research is a methodological and conceptual warning: we cannot confuse correlation with causation or reduce a complex social phenomenon to simple individual variables such as a psychiatric diagnosis. Mental health should be considered as a potential component among many other vulnerability factors , but not as a necessary or sufficient cause of radicalization or participation in some types of terrorism (Fernández et al. 2019).
Radicalization is a multifactorial process: ideological, identity, community, political, economic and situational factors interact with people's personal histories.
Thus, prevention policies and deradicalization strategies must incorporate a comprehensive analysis that combines an understanding of ideological dynamics, social structures and individual contexts, avoiding both the stigmatization of people with mental disorders and the simplification of the processes that lead to extremist violence.
Theoretical models of radicalization and the relationship with mental health
The main explanatory models of violent radicalization agree in pointing out that there is no single or linear path to violent radicalization and terrorism, and that individual psychological factors (including mental health) do not occupy a central or determining place.
Fathali Moghaddam's (2005) ladder model to terrorism describes radicalization as a gradual process in which individuals progressively reduce their perceived options until they legitimize violence. In this model, the key elements are perceived injustice, relative deprivation, identification with an ideological narrative, and moral legitimization of violence, not the presence of psychopathology.
Explanations that reduce radicalization to an individual "mental disorder" can obscure the most relevant structural causes and opportunities for prevention and intervention.
Similarly, McCauley and Moskalenko's (2008a, 2017a) pyramid model of radicalization differentiates between attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, and highlights the importance of group mechanisms, identity dynamics, and social polarization . At none of these levels do mental health disorders appear as a main explanatory variable, but at most as a possible factor of individual vulnerability in very specific contexts.
Lone terrorists and mental health
One of the points where the debate between mental health and terrorism has been most intense is in the analysis of so-called lone actors. Research shows that, indeed, the prevalence of mental disorders is higher in terrorists who act alone than in those integrated into structured organizations.
However, this data is often misinterpreted. Firstly, because social isolation, marginality or relational failure can be a consequence (and not a cause) of the radicalization process. Secondly, because lone actors represent a minority within the global phenomenon in the case of, for example, jihadist terrorism, and extrapolating their characteristics to the rest of the group is methodologically incorrect.
There is no single or linear path to violent radicalization and terrorism, and individual psychological factors (including mental health) do not occupy a central or determining place.
Furthermore, several qualitative studies indicate that many people with psychiatric diagnoses are not easily accepted or exploited by terrorist organizations, precisely because they may be perceived as unpredictable or unreliable. This reinforces the idea that mental health is not a functional factor for organized radicalization (Garriga, 2015).
The treatment of mental health in the media
Risk of stigmatization and errors in prevention policies
One of the most problematic consequences of associating terrorism with mental health is the risk of double stigmatization : on the one hand, of people with mental disorders; on the other, of certain communities already subjected to processes of suspicion and securitization.
From a prevention perspective, this association may lead to inefficient strategies, focused on the clinical detection of "dangerous profiles", instead of addressing the true risk factors:
- Identity grievance processes.
- Victimist narratives.
- Group dynamics.
- Influence of ideological references.
- Specific sociopolitical contexts.
The literature on the prevention of violent extremism insists that medicalizing radicalization is a conceptual error , as it shifts the focus from the social phenomenon to the individual, making structural responsibilities and opportunities for community intervention invisible (Heath-Kelly and Shanaah, 2025).
Implications for intervention and deradicalization
This does not mean that mental health is irrelevant. On the contrary, in secondary and tertiary prevention programs, psychological care can be key to working on factors such as trauma, frustration, emotional management or identity reconstruction . But always as part of a comprehensive and multidisciplinary strategy.
The most effective programs combine (Dedeu and Garriga, 2019):
- Individual psychosocial intervention.
- Work with families and community environments.
- Credible ideological counter-narratives.
- Addressing social factors such as exclusion, perceived discrimination or lack of life projects.
