There are a wide variety of potential applications of artificial intelligence (AI) in Defence settings, ranging from the use of autonomous drones to logistical support. However, limited research exists exploring how the public view these, especially in view of the value of public attitudes for influencing policy-making. An accurate understanding of the public’s perceptions is essential for crafting informed policy, developing responsible governance, and building responsive assurance relating to the development and use of AI in military settings. This study is the first to explore public perceptions of and attitudes towards AI in Defence. A series of four focus groups were conducted with 20 members of the UK public, aged between 18 and 70, to explore their perceptions and attitudes towards AI use in general contexts and, more specifically, applications of AI in Defence settings. Thematic analysis revealed four themes and eleven sub-themes, spanning the role of humans in the system, the ethics of AI use in Defence, trust in AI versus trust in the organisation, and gathering information about AI in Defence. Participants demonstrated a variety of misconceptions about the applications of AI in Defence, with many assuming that a variety of different technologies involving AI are already being used. This highlighted a confluence between information from reputable sources combined with narratives from the mass media and conspiracy theories. The study demonstrates gaps in knowledge and misunderstandings that need to be addressed, and offers practical insights for keeping the public reliably, accurately, and adequately informed about the capabilities, limitations, benefits, and risks of AI in Defence.

Purpose The purpose of this study is to compare violent and non-violent extremists in terms of their age when they first perpetrate an extremist act, and to understand how this relates to other factors underlying extremist behaviours. While the end goal of many extremists may be functionally similar, the pathways into extremism vary, and the literature has demonstrated that a “one-size-fits-all” explanation does not exist. Motivational drivers are complex and dynamic; therefore, attempting to identify a terrorist “profile” has limited applied efficacy. Design/methodology/approach This study applied a temporal approach (“crime script analysis” or CSA) to identify, map and compare the sequential stages (or “scenes”) in the life histories of violent and non-violent extremists who have committed acts of extremism across different age groups. Crime scripts comprising mainly qualitative data for 40 male extremists (20 violent, 20 non-violent “cases”) were developed, and CSA was conducted according to the age at which they committed their first extremist offence. Findings Results demonstrated key temporal, developmental differences between the pathways of extremists who commit their first offence at different ages. One key difference was that for both the violent and non-violent extremists, those under 30 used the internet as a main means of joining networks and spreading information, whereas the over 30s made more personal, community links. Originality/value This research can aid identification of potential environmental triggers and potential increased susceptibility to triggers across certain age groups.

Extremists and the behaviors performed by extremists are a growing concern. There is a growing body of research showing the differences between violent and nonviolent extremists in terms of developmental pathways and actions. The current research used a temporal approach, crime script analysis, to map the pathways of violent and nonviolent extremists. Results showed differences between the groups in terms of Internet use, social networks and methods of enacting their beliefs. This research provides a new approach to understanding extremism and highlights the role of temporal methods in showing key differences that require different intervention strategies.

There is a vast corpus literature across a range of disciplines that seeks to understand why and how people and groups conduct acts of extremism-related violence. A simplistic narrative is often portrayed whereby religion and violent extremism are inextricably intertwined, and where Islam as a faith is conflated with a specific brand of Islamist terrorism and more widely presented as a threat to freedom and democracy (Ahmed & Matthes, 2017). However, the relationship between religious ideology and acts of violent extremism is complex, and inherently difficult to understand. Furthermore, as a topic of study, the role of Islam in contemporary political violence is a challenging one to engage with various practical, methodological and ethical reasons. This chapter explores the role of radicalisation, religion, and ideology in relation to violent extremism, and the evidence for and against these as drivers of violent action. Established literature from the social and political sciences is examined to consider the extant evidence and provide insights on how, when and why religion drives violent extremism, and when it does not. Recommendations for countering and preventing violent extremism (C/PVE) are made: for example, it is proposed that efforts need to be evidence-based and tailored for individuals drawn into violent extremism for different reasons, to avoid further marginalising certain societal groups due to their religious beliefs, and to ensure that interventions are evidence-based, draw on best practice, and are thus likely to be effective.

Introduction:The use of artificial intelligence (AI) for national defense is a matter of high societal significance and ongoing public discourse, but very little is known about public acceptance of AI in defense contexts. Currently, there is no reliable and valid measure of attitudes towards AI in defense, and more general attitudinal measures on AI use are unlikely to capture relevant perceptions and opinions. A measure was therefore developed for the assessment of Attitudes towards AI in Defense (AAID), and this work presents the initial validation of this scale.Methods:A total of 1,590 participants (aged 19-75, M = 45.7, SD = 16.1) completed a self-report questionnaire which included an initial item pool of 29 attitudinal statements related to the use of AI in defense. An additional general attitude towards AI scale was also included to assess the concurrently validity of the AAID scale. The AAID underwent initial statistical validation via exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis to test the underlying structure of the newly developed scale.Results:Items reduction and exploratory factor analysis resulted in a final scale consisting of 15 items. A final two factor solution explained 42.52% of the variance (Factor 1 = 22.35%, Factor 2 = 20.17%). Factor 1 was termed "Positive outcomes" and reflected the potential and anticipated consequences of implementing AI in defense. Factor 2 was termed "Negative Outcomes" and reflected the potential negative outcomes for AI in defense. The scale also exhibited acceptable internal reliability and current validity.Discussion:The newly developed AAID presents a new measurement tool which has the capacity to assess current attitudes towards AI in defense. Such work is essential if further developments in AI in defense are to continue with the support of the public. However, the work also notes that there are some key concerns and barriers that could block further developments in the area, with further work needed to explore how such anxieties are driven by narratives related to the topic.

Presented here is an exploratory study that compared four kinds of extremists (violent lone, nonviolent lone, violent group member, and nonviolent group member). Thematic analysis of 40 case studies identified five key themes and a number of subthemes that comprised a range of underlying variables. Comparisons of the four groups showed that in many ways violent and nonviolent extremists acting alone or as part of a group do not differ. However there were some variables that distinguished between groups. Findings are discussed in terms of implications for countering and preventing violent extremism.

This IJCV focus section presents seven articles that resulted from a project involving a mix of researchers and practitioners working jointly on different aspects of radicalization. The current commentary provides an overview of these, examining how the findings inform our wider understanding, support previous findings and provide a framework for future research. It also synthesizes the issues raised and explores where this takes the scientific and applied community. Whilst based primarily on literature and lessons learned from Germany, many of the findings and recommendations are applicable to the wider international context. This collection of articles on the subject of radicalization therefore provides the reader with a broad and up-to-date understanding of key concepts, themes and issues, and an in-depth understanding of specific topics, ongoing challenges and knowledge gaps. It also provides a solid basis to inform evidence-based practice and highlights practitioner requirements and gaps in understanding that need to be addressed. The knowledge presented here can therefore inform Preventing/Countering Violent Extremism efforts, which need to be practical, feasible, affordable and evidence-based.

In 2014 an intense debate over the state of terrorism literature was published. Sageman [2014. The stagnation in terrorism research. Terrorism and Political Violence, 26(4), 565-580. doi:] claimed that the field had stagnated, mainly due to lack of data sharing between government departments that have access to valuable information that could inform our understanding, and researchers who have the skills and expertise to make sense of this. However, others were more positive regarding the literature, highlighting areas where progress has been made [e.g. McCauley, & Moskalenko (2014). Some things We think We've learned since 9/11: A commentary on Marc Sageman's 'The stagnation in terrorism research'. Terrorism and Political Violence, 26(4), 601-606. doi:; Stern (2014). Response to Marc Sageman's 'The stagnation in terrorism research'. Terrorism and Political Violence, 26(4), 607-613. doi:; Taylor (2014). If I were you, I wouldn't start from here: Response to Marc Sageman's The stagnation in terrorism research'. Terrorism and Political Violence, 26(4), 581-586. doi:]. Here we re-visit the literature and identify advances that have been made since 2014. We explore ongoing challenges for terrorism researchers and practitioners, and options for ways forward to ensure evidence-based responses to terrorist individuals and groups.

Veterinary practitioners are thought of as guardians of animal health and wellbeing, and are considered important in the development of policies on animals. Measuring veterinary students' attitudes toward animals and animal use is needed when assessing the effectiveness of education programs focused on animal welfare and ethics. The present study examined Spanish veterinary students' attitudes toward different types of animal use, their human-directed empathy, and the relationship between these and various personal variables. The sample comprised 200 students who completed an online questionnaire. Attitudes toward animal use varied significantly, depending on the type of use in question. There was also a relationship between attitudes toward animal use, one component of human-directed empathy, "Empathic Concern," and a number of personal variables such as gender, career choice, and contact with animal welfare organizations. Concern about the use of animals for research and animal management was lower in students who were in the later years of their studies. Reasons for this and the role of veterinary education are discussed.

It is notoriously difficult to distinguish between those who simply espouse radical beliefs and those who are prepared to commit acts of extremist-related violence. This poses a problem for those responsible for counter terrorism (CT) needing to discriminate between the two. The present study adopted an empirical approach to compare violent and non-violent extremists. In-depth case studies on 40 extremist individuals were developed and analyzed for key themes, sub-themes and underlying variables. Violent extremists (VEs) and non-violent extremists (NVEs) were compared to understand where similarities and differences lie. Identified were a number of variables that distinguish between VEs and NVEs; this has implications for CT in terms of prevent, pursue and intervention. Results can, for example, assist those responsible for CT and law enforcement to focus on variables that distinguish between violent and non-violent extremists in order to identify those who are most high risk (i.e. likely to actively facilitate and/ or commit acts of extreme violence) and focus their efforts on these, rather than on those who are not. Results can also inform CT practitioners and policy-makers on the development of tailored interventions for different types of extremist individuals and groups.

Anticipating whether an adversary group will continue to use their usual (conventional), expected attack methods is important for military and counterterrorism practitioners tasked with protecting the security of others. Conventional attack methods are by their nature easier to plan and prepare for whilst innovative methods may take those responsible for security and counterterrorism by surprise and, as such, may have more impact and more serious consequences. The present study aimed to develop understanding of how, when, and why adversary groups might decide to use conventional attack methods or opt to do something innovative instead. A literature review was conducted and findings were applied to develop a thorough understanding of the decision-making process that underlies an adversary group's choice of attack method. Identified are three stages preceding the execution of an attack: a) strategic direction; b) incubation; and c) planning and preparation, plus overarching and contextual factors that can influence the process at each stage. It is suggested that it is these factors and how they influence decision-making that result in innovative methods being used to execute an attack, or convention prevailing. Findings can aid practitioners and policy-makers in counterterrorism, security, and law enforcement, to support their understanding, evaluation, and countering of current and future threats.

The following paper was prepared as part of an effort to advance public understanding of the science of animal cognition. The project, Wild Minds! What Animals Really Think, was developed by the New York Hall of Science (NYSci), in collaboration with Institute for Learning Innovation (ILI), ILI’s successor on the project, New Knowledge Organization Ltd. and Hunter College through funding from the US National Science Foundation. The project explored how public value is increased through transdisciplinary efforts at communicating science content through exhibitions displayed within zoos and science centers in the same area. The professional practice aspects of this study explored the influence of transdisciplinary thinking in professional and paraprofessional discourses.

Belief in the mental lives of nonhuman animals can have an impact on how we view and treat them, yet little is known about how and why laypeople attribute emotions to other species. The current study investigated how familiarity with animals (in terms of ownership) relates to beliefs regarding different emotions within and across species. An opportunity sample of 200 participants completed a questionnaire that measured familiarity with animals and beliefs about the capacity of a variety of species to experience a range of 16 different emotions. Participants reported varied levels of experience with animals and it was found that, regardless of familiarity, participants reported a wide variety of emotions in all the species they were asked to consider. However, participants who had never lived with an animal reported far fewer emotions than those who had, regardless of species. Keeping more than one animal did not increase the number of emotions reported. Keepers of a particular species always reported more emotions for that species than nonkeepers of that species. We conclude that familiarity with animals is an important determinant of belief about emotions in animals and animal mind in general.

Purpose. The present survey examined the beliefs of different occupational groups (police officers, social workers, teachers) and members of the general public about (i) cues to deception in young children (5- to 6-year-olds), adolescents (14- to 15-year-olds) and adults, and (ii) the underlying processes (emotions, cognitive load and attempted verbal and behavioural control), which may explain why cues to deceit do occur. Method. Two hundred and six participants completed a 'cues to deception' and 'processes underlying deception' questionnaire for three different age groups (young children, adolescents and adults). Results and discussion. The survey revealed that participants believed that liars are nervous, have difficulties in formulating their lies and do not fully endorse their lies. In general, participants associated more cues with deception than seems justified on the basis of deception literature. Participants generally associated the same cues to deceit for all three age groups but, when differences between age groups did emerge, this was most likely to be amongst teachers. Although participants believed that adults control their speech and behaviour more when they lie than adolescents and young children do, this did not result in participants believing that adults exhibit fewer cues to deceit. No major occupational differences emerged, although out of the four participating groups, teachers were most likely to associate cues with deception in young children.

Presented here are three research studies examining psychological characteristics underlying attitudes toward the use of nonhuman animals: beliefs and value systems; their comparative impact on opinions; and empathetic responses to humans and to animals. The first study demonstrated that the attitudes of laypeople are context dependent: different sets of beliefs underlie attitudes toward various types of animal use. Belief in the existence of alternatives ("perceptions of choice") was especially important, accounting alone for 40% of the variance in attitudes. The second study compared the opinions, beliefs, value systems, and empathetic responses of scientists, animal welfarists, and laypeople. Results demonstrated that laypersons are most similar to the science community, not the animal welfare community,. Scientists and laypeople differed on very few measures, whereas animal welfarists differed on most measures. The third study demonstrated a causal link between belief and attitude: manipulating "perceptions of choice" led to a significant change in support for animal use. These studies explain how individuals and groups can have dramatically different attitudes toward animal use and demonstrate how opinions can be changed.

Scientists have been portrayed as having an uncaring attitude toward the use of animals and being inclined to reject the possibility of animal mind (Baldwin, 1993; Blumberg & Wasserman, 1995), yet there is little empirical research to support these claims. We examined why disparate attitudes toward animal use are held. Scientists, animal welfarists, and laypersons (N = 372) were compared on questionnaire responses that measured attitudes toward four types of animal use, and factors that might underlie these views (including belief in animal mind). As expected, scientists and animal welfarists held polarized views on all measures, whereas laypersons fell between the two. Animal welfarists were consistently opposed to all types of animal use, whereas scientists expressed support for the use of animals for medical research, but not for dissection, personal decoration, and entertainment. Animal welfarists showed high levels of belief in animal mind for 13 animal types, and scientists believed some of the 13 animals to have at least a moderate capacity for cognition and most to have at least a moderate capacity for sentience. Hence, the negative image of the science community that is often portrayed was not supported by our data. Findings were discussed in relation to external (group membership) and internal (belief systems) factors, and it is concluded that some people hold fixed attitudes toward animal use, whereas others are more influenced by context.

Relations between humans and nonhuman animals are morally significant, intense, enduring, and pervasive. Presented here are current perspectives on social and psychological aspects of human–animal interactions. The articles in this issue focus on three broad themes—attitudes toward the use of other species, the effects of relationships with companion animals on human health and well‐being, and the ethical and policy implications of our interactions with other species. The article represent a mix of theory, qualitative and quantitative empirical approaches, review, and policy recommendations on a topic that has historically been neglected by social scientists.

"Animal use" is a contentious topic that refers to practices t involving the utilization of non-human animals by human beings. These practices often evoke strong and emotional reactions from opposing parties, and individuals can hold incongruent views concerning different ways in which animals are used. Yet previous research in this area has tended to portray attitudes toward animal use as uni-dimensional (rather than distinguishing between different types of use), and the field has been dominated by quantitative approaches that focus on participant characteristics such as gender, age, and so on, in order to explain variance in people's views on this topic. The present study assumed that attitudes are not uni-dimensional and applied Grounded Theory Methodology in order to determine psychological factors that underlie people's views concerning animal use issues. Eight participant-led interviews explored the factors that people consider when rationalizing their attitudes toward the use of animals, and interview transcripts were analyzed with an aim to understanding why attitudes vary depending upon the type of animal use in question. Three key themes were identified, labelled as "type of animal used," "purpose of animal use," and "knowledge of animal use." These represent beliefs concerning animals and animal use, and help explain why people can support some animal use practices whilst opposing others. We conclude that taking a psychological approach in order to further examine the beliefs that underlie attitudes provides a way forward for future research.

Objectives: The increase in aging populations has implications for the provision of health and social services. A preventative approach is taken to address this problem by examining a mechanism that can enhance physical health and reduce minor ailments. Methods: Participants in 10 focus groups discussed physical, psychological, and social benefits associated with human—dog interactions. Methods provided a rich database of individual perspectives on dogs as motivators to a healthy lifestyle. Results: Interaction between humans and dogs is a mechanism that can enhance the physical and psychological health of elderly citizens and promote a social support network between dog owners. In turn, dependence and impact on health and social services are alleviated. Discussion: The social and community consequences of promoting dog ownership in the elderly are addressed, and it is concluded that the benefits of dog ownership should be promoted among the elderly and acknowledged by relevant agencies.