VIM: A Platform for Violent Intent Modeling

  • Antonio Sanfilippo
  • Jack Schryver
  • Paul Whitney
  • Elsa Augustenborg
  • Gary Danielson
  • Sandy Thompson
Conference paper


Radical and contentious activism may or may not evolve into violent behavior depending on contextual factors related to social, political, cultural and infrastructural conditions. Significant theoretical advances have been made in understanding these contextual factors and the import of their interrelations. However, there has been relatively little progress in the development of processes and capabilities that leverage such theoretical advances to automate the anticipatory analysis of violent intent. In this paper, we describe a framework that implements such processes and capabilities, and discuss the implications of using the resulting system to assess the emergence of radicalization leading to violence.


Social Movement Violent Behavior Content Extraction Intelligence Analysis Muslim Brotherhood 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Al-Sayyid, M. K. (2003) The other Face of the Islamist Movement. Carnegie Paper No. 33, January 2003. Available at
  2. 2.
    Bocca, G, (1978) Il terrorismo italiano, Rizzoli, Milano.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    McAdam, D., S. Tarrow, C. Tilly (2001) Dynamics of Contention. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hermann, M. G. (2003) Assessing leadership style: Trait analysis. In Jerrold M. Post (Ed.) The Psychological Assessment of Political Leaders: With Profiles of Saddam Hussein and Bill Clinton, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Suedfeld, P., Tetlock, P., & Streufert, S. (1992). Conceptual/integrative complexity. In C.P. Smith (Ed.) Motivation and Personality: Handbook of thematic content analysis. Cambridge, EnglandCambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sani, F. (2005). When subgroups secede: Extending and refining the social psychological model of schisms in groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31:1074–1086.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Benford, D. and R. Snow (2000) Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 26, pp. 611–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    START: The National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terror. University of Maryland.
  9. 9.
    Sticha, P., Buede, D. and Rees, R. (2005) APOLLO: An Analytical Tool for Predicting a Subject's Decision-making. Proceedings of the 2005 International Conference on Intelligence Analysis, McLean, VA.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chaturvedi, A., Purdue University, D. Dolk, R. Chaturvedi, M. Mulpuri, D. Lengacher, S. Mellema, P. Poddar, C. Foong,and B. Armstrong, (2005) Understanding Insurgency by Using Agent-based Computational Experimentation: Case Study of Indonesia. Proceedings of the Agent 2005 Conference on Generative Social Processes, Models and Mechanisms, Chicago, IL, pp. 781–799.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Miller, G. (1956) The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information. The Psychological Review, 6381–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Heuer, R.J.Jr. (1999) Psychology of Intelligence Analysis. Center for the Study of Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    McCarthy, J. D. and Mayer N. Zald (2001) The Enduring Vitality of the Resource Mobilization Theory of Social Movements in Jonathan H. Turner (ed.), Handbook of Sociological Theory, pp.535–65.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Costa, P.T. & McCrae, R.R. (1985) The NEO Personality Inventory manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Young, M.D. (2001) Building worldview(s) with Profiler+. In M.D. West (ed.), Applications of computer content analysis. Westport, CTAblex.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shapiro, A. and Niederhauser, D. (2004). Learning from hypertext: research issues and findings. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology, 2nd Ed., pp. 605–620. Mahwah, NJErlbaum.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    O'Donnell, A. M., Dansereau, D. F. And Hall, R. H. (2002) Knowledge maps as scaffolds for cognitive processing. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 71–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nielsen, J. (1990). The art of navigating through hypertext. Communications of the ACM, 33(3)297–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tergan, S. O. (2004). Concept maps for managing individual knowledge. Proceedings of the First Joint Meeting of the EARLI SIGS, pp. 229–238.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sanfilippo, A., A.J. Cowell, S. Tratz, A. Boek, A.K. Cowell, C Posse, and L. Pouchard (2007) Content Analysis for Proactive Intelligence: Marshaling Frame Evidence. Proceeding of the AAAI Conference. Vancouver, BC, Canada, July 22–26, 2007.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sanfilippo, A., L. Franklin, S. Tratz, G. Danielson, N. Mileson, R. Riensche, and L. Mc-Grath (2008) Automating Frame Analysis. In H. Liu, J. Salerno, and M.Young (eds.), Social Computing, Behavioral Modeling, and Prediction, pp. 239–248. Springer, NY.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    McCauley, C., S. Moskalenko (2008) Mechanisms of Political Radicalization: Pathways Toward Terrorism. Terrorism and Political Violence, Volume 20, Issue 3 July 2008, pages 415 – 433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag US 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antonio Sanfilippo
    • 1
  • Jack Schryver
    • 2
  • Paul Whitney
    • 1
  • Elsa Augustenborg
    • 1
  • Gary Danielson
    • 1
  • Sandy Thompson
    • 1
  1. 1.Pacific Northwest National LaboratoryRichland
  2. 2.Oak Ridge National LaboratoryOak Ridge

Personalised recommendations