Psychology of Terrorism - National Criminal Justice Reference Service

or split into terrorist organizations.- Terrorists learn from others’ examples as well as from their own experience.- According to Reich (1990, p. 263), psychological explanations of terrorism have not dealt with theenormous variety and complexity of the issue. He observed, “Even the briefest review of thehistory of terrorism reveals how varied and complex a phenomenon it is, and therefore how futile itis to attribute simple, global, and general psychological characteristics to all terrorists and allterrorism. - Some types of background are over-represented in terrorists. Post (1990) cited evidencefrom several extensive studies of terrorists’ backgrounds that indicate that many of them came fromthe margins of society or were unsuccessful in their personal lives, jobs, and educations, or both. -Tedeschi and Felson (1994) emphasized that learning from the repeated success of aggressivebehavior is a major factor in encouraging groups to engage in violence.-Terrorists generally are not impulsive, either individually or in groups. On the other hand, they doexhibit the propensity to take risks.- A high proportion of terrorists appear to be stimulus seekers. They are attracted to stressfulsituations and are quickly bored when inactive (Long, 1990).- Post (1990, p.35) “The cause is not the cause. The cause, as codified in the group’s ideology,according to this line or reasoning, becomes the rationale for acts the terrorists are driven to commit.Indeed, the central argument of this position is that individuals become terrorists in order to jointerrorist groups and commit acts of terrorism.”- Terrorists use coercion as a form of social influence (Tedschi and Felson, 1994). Tedschi andFelson have identified three primary social motives for using coercion: (1) to influence others toobtain some benefit, (2) to express grievances and establish justice, and (3) to assert or defend socialidentities.- Bandura (1990, p. 186) “The path to terrorism can be shaped by fortuitous factors as well as by theconjoint influence of personal predilections and social inducements.”- Although the study of terrorism is difficult and far from complete, the evidence suggests thefollowing general characteristics of these groups, reflecting many of the principles that apply togroup violence in general: Individual and group are influenced by their environment, includingpolitical, cultural, historical, economic, and social factors. When deciding on a course of action,they weigh risks/costs vs. benefits in service of obtaining desired goals or resources. They usestrategies, tactics, and operations to create an imbalance of power in the terrorists’ favor. They workto create a strong group identity, with an “us vs. them” (in-group vs. out-group) mentality. Thisfosters groupthink. Members typically are not deranged. Although there is no personality profilethat could be characterized as typical of terrorists, certain traits appear to be over-represented amonggroups’ members, including risk-taking (although they are not impulsive), low self-esteem, feelingout of control of their lives, and ascribing their failures to outside sources. Many of them come fromthe margins of society, and it is not uncommon for them to have experienced significant disruptionof life during childhood. Terrorist leaders are, on the average, more hostile and narcissistic thantheir followers. Leaders manipulate followers’ emotions, and utilize coercion and disengagement ofmoral responses to help enable the perpetration of violence, especially on innocent people.41. Cohen, G. (1966). Women of violence: Memoir of a young terrorist. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Call Number: Unable to Locate42. Collins, E., & McGovern M. (1997). Killing rage. London: Granta Books.Call Number: Editor's Annotation: The principal author, Eamon Collins, is a former IntelligenceOfficer with the IRA where he personally was responsible for several murders. In this book, whichis written as popular work more than a scholarly treatise, he recounts his story of involvement in theIRA and in terrorist activities. He focuses heavily on descriptions of the culture and context(emphasizing his personal conditions of socioeconomic deprivation) of Northern Ireland breeding akind of collective anger that was then used to justify violence and human atrocities. He attempts toportray the violence and collateral disorder starkly, and not apologetically. To the extent that thereader can rely on the author’s self-reflective insights, appraisal of social influence, and internalnarration, certain psychological lessons could potentially be inferred, although it is quite unclearhow well these experiences would generalize, even to others involved in terrorism in NorthernIreland.