Group Analysis Protocol (GAP) Tool for Counterterrorism Andrew Bringuel, II FBI Behavioral Science Unit IAFIE Conf. 9 June in DC

Criminal radicalization : Disengagement using GAP approach… Overall theory: Criminal Radicalization is an individualized process of a person’s behavior being influenced by their acceptance of an absolute truth and unwillingness to accept alternative truths… it allows for the rationalization of “activators” for law breaking behavior that allows for suppression of “inhibitors” for law abiding behavior and is a process not all group members realize.   Recruitment: Indoctrination: Initiation : Education: Rationalization (reasoning of behaviors): *Passive – Indirect Online, Speeches, Video, Books, Pictures… * Assertive – Direct Family, Friend Conference, Internship, School, Church, Group meetings, One on one contact * Forced – Kidnapped, coerced, conscripted, “birthright.” *Personal motivations for joining group (biographical triggers, personality, and biology *Introduction to group’s anchors, definitions, and narratives (“truths”) * Introducing a new social contract * Repetitive use of group pledge or oath *Often assigning a new personal name * Often assigning a new group name *Isolation of the new recruit in most cases *Surrendering personal identity in favor of the group’s ID may include a uniform, tattoo, other identifier *Tests for standards of behavior/performance including physical and mental tests of obedience *Tests of conformity and loyalty including initiation (hazing) rites, ceremonies, or customs …the difference between activist and others is behavior (respecting inhibitors or rationalizing activators). Members decide whether to respect “inhibitors” for law abiding behavior or “activators” for law breaking behavior… Radicalization/Group Member (levels of belief): Studying of group’s narrative (ideology and social contract) often in cohesive sub-group and in isolation to alternative truths. *Testing of recruit’s knowledge regarding group’s ideology and social contract Explanations or reasoning of behaviors… law abiding or law breaking. Some believers maybe more influenced by the situation or groupthink . Some become radicalize true believers (RTBs), they are collective identifiers moved by an absolute belief in the cause, while others are group members moved by individual identity or personal motive. Common factor among RTBs is they believe in an “absolute truth” and are UNWILLING to accept alternative truths in their situational environment Mobilization: Behavior of “actor” is used a positive anchor for the group and any response from government is used as a neg anchor Action: *Behaviors (can be described as activist (legal), non-violent criminal extremist , or terrorist (illegal and violent against people or property)) The difference between the radical true believer and the group member is intent (belief state)…

Radicalization: It’s a process of belief/motives and behaviors… Key Points There is a distinction between belief systems and behavior, inhibitors and activators. Not all radicals are law breakers, not all criminal “group members” are “radical true believers.” There are distinguishing behaviors between activists, extremists, and terrorists Ultimately all members reside on a scale from “group member” = high individual identity to “radical true believers” = high collective identity, with different primary anchors that can be identified and exploited. Inter-looping relationships between groups people belong to influence their beliefs and behavior. Personal calculus can be identified and used to calculate propensities for behavior All humint sources come from relationships. Personality traits play a role in determining belief states and the development of trust relationships.  

Types of groups Current research areas for the Terrorism Research And Analysis Project (TRAP) include: Mass movements: Inclusive mass movements: Requires actions for the common good, but allow for self-determination or self actualization (in practical organizations) Promote tolerance Discourage hatred Allow for violence only in a “just cause” Allow for violence only as a “last resort” Allow for introspection/reflection and debate that leads to reform and peaceful change Strives to be a “practical organization” Operate with “virtue” Exclusive mass movements: Requires actions for the common good suffer from group think and behavior Promote intolerance Encourage hatred Advocates violence in furtherance of a political or social objective (end state) Not a just cause and not as a last resort Does not allow debate or questioning of “groupthink” change often comes from violence and reform comes from “splintering” leading to factions. Can never be a “practical organization” Operate without “virtue”  

GAP: Creating a targeting tool for Confidential Human Sources that will provide a “range” of… exploitability, identify anchors (incentives), articulate them into definitions, that can become a counter-narrative for development and recruitment purposes. Ranging level of radicalization based on personal identity and group identity… based on incentives for membership, biographical triggers, and current situational environment. Individuals will be group member, violent group member, non-violent criminal group member, violent criminal group member, and suicidal criminal violent group member, or Radical true believer, violent radical true believer, non-violent criminal radical true believer, violent criminal radical true believer, and suicidal criminal violent radical true believer.

As a result of these differences The behaviors maybe the same but the “rationale” or incentives may be different… The Group Member retains much of their individual identity and could be either expressive or instrumentally oriented, as such an instrumentally driven group member should be approached with an “art of the deal bargaining” (discussion approach)… as opposed to an expressively driven group member who should be approached with a “Dr. Phil, crisis intervention (dialogue approach). Most Radical True Believers assume much of the collective’s identity (highly expressive) and as such an instrumentally driven approach (Discussion) will usually fail. The better approach will be a dialogue that allows the individual to reclaim some or all of their own individual identity in a non-threatening, or demanding way.

HOW??? TRUST and RAPPORT Maximize the differences between the target’s individual identity (personal sets of anchors (incentives), definitions (rationale), and narratives (truths or preferred outcomes) with the Group’s anchors, definitions, and narratives while minimizing the similarities of same, and at the same time maximize the similarities between the target’s anchors, definitions, and narratives and the collector’s group identity… while minimizing the differences between the target’s anchors, definitions, and narratives and the collector’s group identity. THESE ANCHORS CAN BE EITHER EXPRESSIVE OR INSTRUMENTAL VALUES…LAST PIECE IS TO PAIR THE RIGHT COLLECTOR (PERSONALITY AND BACKGROUND) FOR THE INTENDED TARGRET!