Psychology of Terrorists
While conducting research on the Unabomber, along with the final week’s readings on terrorism. The psychology of terrorism, and those who are able to carry out such acts intrigued me for further research. It is an interesting debate that various researchers make different claims for their opinion in the mind behind terrorism.
The first expert Martha Crenshaw, in 1981 published her research on terrorism paired with certain psychological factors underlying it at its core. Crenshaw (1981) asks why, “ the individual takes the first step and choses to engage in terrorism.” To this she claims that, “terrorism is the result of a gradual growth of commitment and opposition, a group development that depends on government action. The psychological relationships within the group- the interplay of commitment, risk, solidarity, loyalty, guilt, revenge, and isolation- discourage terrorists from changing the direction they have taken (Crenshaw p.397, 1981).” This article thinks of terrorism mainly as a group. Where Crenshaw utilizes ideas like groupthink and group dynamics as a factor in terrorist psychology. This was definitely a major factor when watching recruiting videos in ISIS and similar groups. People are responding to the call to become something larger. While Crenshaw’s statements remain true today, the shift in terrorism seems to have moved away from large groups operating under a single name towards one cause.
In Kruglansky’s article The Psychology of Terrorism he discusses many risk factors that, in part, cause individuals to join terrorist groups. He clearly distinguishes that there is no one overarching personality type that all people who join terrorist groups fit under. The personality types he mentions he considers to be a “contributing factor” instead of a “root cause” for why individuals resort to terrorism (Kruglansky, 2006). First, he mentions relative deprivation or a desire for what an individual perceives to have. Relative deprivation, or the discontent with ones self relative to others does not need to be present in every case, however it does demonstrate a level of desire for achieving a goal and, in their mind, the best way to attain that goal was through terrorism (Kruglansky, 2006). Kruglansky (2006) also states that those in favor of right-wing authoritarianism are another common theme for individuals willing to join terrorist groups. These results reflect a study on Lebanese individuals who reacted in favor of aggression towards the US. Simultaneously, their results also reflected a subsequently in high support of right-wing authoritarianism.
Mortality salience is the final factor that Kruglansky (2006) identifies as another contributing factor for an individual being drawn to terrorism. Mortality salience is defined as anxiety over ones demise. Humans try to make themselves immortal by leaving a legacy. Humans are aware of their death, unlike other animals. In a study Kruglansky cites, Iranian students, who on average are exposed to more death, are reminded more of their own death and thus demonstrate higher levels of support for suicide bombings (Kruglansky, 2006).
Other authors, armed with extensive research create their own models of traits that may push or pull individuals towards joining terrorism. Haslam mentions emotion as a pushing factor (Haslam, 2006).He believes that dehumanization effects individuals, as their mistreatment builds resent over time. This is trait is also accompanied by degradation and humiliation that would drive an individual away from society into a terrorist group.
Other authors continue to find trends building an extensive profile of risk factors. Victoroff’s argument shares many of the previously stated characteristics but adds a couple such as narcissism, often coupled with a lack of empathy is also noted to be personality traits that could push individuals who are at risk into joining a cult but also possibly a terrorist group (Victoroff, 2005). He also recognizes other broad psychological theories that could push individuals like apocalyptic theory, or expectation of ones imminent demise. Paranoia theory, claims that individuals with political grievances use terrorism against persons who may not actually be a threat. Other factors addressed by authors are alienation, which can occur at an individual level as well as in a group setting. An individual can remove himself from society, as can a group (Victoroff, 2005). The separation of ones self from all others and society has cultivated thought to join extremist groups or become a lone wolf.
In Great Expectations and Hard Times by Brockoff, Kreiger, and Meierrieks, they connect education as a risk factor to terrorism. Some of their findings show that education makes terrorism less likely by teaching the population to combat the propaganda. However, there is also concern that education is creating high-level operatives capable of higher capacity operations (Brockoff, Krieger, Meierrieks, 2015). The article concludes by mentioning that sole strengthening of education in less developed countries will not necessarily help stop terrorism. Instead, the promotion of education, coupled with efforts to improve poor socioeconomic and demographic conditions will attempt to mitigate the risk of individuals joining terrorist groups.
Similarly to many mental health cases and crime, there is no one root cause, but instead multiple risk factors that cause a push towards a certain behavior or action. However, through these risk factors researchers are able to identify those at risk and hopefully mitigate future terror attacks and threats.
References:
Brockhoff, Sarah, Krieger, Tim and Meierrieks, Daniel. 2015. Great expectations and hard times. 59 (7): 1186-215.
Crenshaw, Martha. 1981. The causes of terrorism. Comparative Politics 13 : 379-99.
Haslam, Nick. 2006. Dehumanization: An integrative review. Vol. 10.
Kruglansky, Arie W. & Fishman, Shira (2006) The Psychology of Terrorism: “Syndrome” Versus “Tool” Perspectives, Terrorism and Political Violence, 18:2, 193-215
Victoroff, Jeff. 2005. The mind of the terrorist: A review and critique of psychological approaches. Journal of Conflict Resolution 49 (1): 3-42.