PSYCHOLOGY OF TERRORISM

WHY INDIVIDUALS BECOME TERRORISTS OR ENGAGE IN TERRORISM?

PSYCHOLOGICAL ANALYSIS.

Among the key psychological factors in understanding whether, how

and which individuals in a given environment will enter the process of

becoming a terrorist are motive and vulnerability. By definition, motive

is an emotion, desire, physiological need, or similar impulse that acts as

an incitement to action, and vulnerability refers to susceptibility or

liability to succumb, as to persuasion or temptation

.

One’s motivation for engaging in terrorism is often presumed to be the

“cause” or ideology of the group. However, as Crenshaw (1985)

notes, “the popular image of the terrorist as an individual motivated

exclusively by deep and intransigent political commitment obscures a

more complex reality.” That reality is that motives to join a terrorist

organization and to engage in terrorism vary considerably across

different types of groups, and also within groups – and they may change

over time.

Martha Crenshaw (1985) for example, suggests that there are at least

four categories of motivation among terrorists: (1) the opportunity for

action, (2) the need to belong, (3) the desire for social status, and (4)

the acquisition of material reward. Post (1990) has gone even further

to suggest even that terrorism is an end unto itself, independent of any

stated political or ideological objectives. His argument is that “the cause

is not the cause. The cause, as codified in the group’s ideology,

according to this line of 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 join terrorist

groups and commit acts of terrorism” .

The quest to understand vulnerabilities should not be confused with a

search for the “terrorist personality” (Horgan, 2003). Horgan (in

press) has framed the issue of vulnerability in the perhaps most lucid

and useful way as “factors that point to some people having a greater

openness to increased engagement than others.” Based on a review of

the existing literature three motivational themes - injustice, identity, and

belonging - appear to be prominent and consistent. These themes also

relate to one’s potential openness or vulnerability.

Injustice: Perceived injustice has long been recognized a central factor

in understanding violence generally and terrorism specifically, dating

back to some of the earliest writings. In the mid-1970s, Hacker (1976 )

concluded that “remediable injustice is the basic motivation for

terrorism”. A desire for revenge or vengeance is a common response to

redress or remediate a wrong of injustice inflicted on another. It is not

difficult to imagine that “one of the strongest motivations behind

terrorism is vengeance, particularly the desire to avenge not oneself but

others. Vengeance can be specific or diffuse, but it is an obsessive

drive that is a power people thought to be responsible for injustices” (Crenshaw, 1992 )

Perceptions of injustice may also be viewed as grievances, which Ross (1993)

has posed as the most important precipitant cause of

terrorism. He suggests such grievances may be economic, ethnic,

racial, legal, political, religious, and/or social, and that they may be

targeted to individuals, groups, institutions or categories of people.

Identity: One’s psychological identity is a developed, stable sense of

self and resolved security in one’s basic values, attitudes, and beliefs.

Developmentally, its formation typically occurs in a crisis of adolescence

or young adulthood, and is tumultuous and emotionally challenging.

However, “the successful development of personal identity is essential

to the integrity and continuity of the personality” (Crenshaw, 1986) .

An individual’s search for identity may draw him or her to

extremist or terrorist organizations in a variety of ways. One may fall

into what psychologist Jim Marcia calls “identity foreclosure” where a

role and set of ideas and values (an identity) are adopted without

personal, critical examination. The absolutist, “black and white” nature

of most extremist ideologies is often attractive to those who feel

overwhelmed by the complexity and stress of navigating a complicated

world.

A variant on this process is one in which an individual defines his or her

identity simply through group membership. Essentially, one’s personal

identity is merged with a group identity, with no sense of (or need for)

individuality or uniqueness. As Johnson and Feldman (1992) suggest,

"membership in a terrorist group provides a sense of identity or

belonging for those personalities whose underlying sense of identity is

flawed.” For these individuals, “belonging to the terrorist group becomes

… the most important component of their psychosocial identity” Post

A similar mechanism is one in which a desperate quest for personal

meaning pushes an individual to adopt a role to advance a cause, with

little or no thoughtful analysis or consideration of its merit. In essence,

the individual resolves the difficult question “Who am I?” by simply

defining him or herself as a “terrorist,” a “freedom fighter,” ”shahid” or

similar role (Della Porta, 1992; Knutson, 1981). Taylor and Louis(2004)

describe a classic set of circumstances for recruitment into a

terrorist organization: “These young people find themselves at a time in

their life when they are looking to the future with the hope of engaging in

meaningful behavior that will be satisfying and get them ahead. Their

objective circumstances including opportunities for advancement are

virtually nonexistent; they find some direction for their religious collective

identity but the desperately disadvantaged state of their community

leaves them feeling marginalized and lost without a clearly defined

collective identity” .

Belonging: In radical extremist groups, many prospective terrorists find

not only a sense of meaning, but also a sense of belonging,

connectedness and affiliation. Luckabaugh and colleagues (1997 )

argue that among potential terrorists “the real cause or psychological

motivation for joining is the great need for belonging.” For these

alienated individuals from the margins of society, joining a terrorist

group represented the first real sense of belonging after a lifetime of

rejection, and the terrorist group was to become the family they never

had” . This strong sense of belonging has critical

importance as a motivating factor for joining, a compelling reason for

staying, and a forceful influence for acting Volkan (1997) .. argued” .

that terrorist groups may provide a security of family by subjugating

individuality to the group identity. A protective cocoon is created that

offers shelter from a hostile world” (Marsella, 2003). Observations on

terrorist recruitment show that many people are influenced to join by

seeking solidarity with family, friends or acquaintances (Della Porta,1995)

and that “for the individuals who become active terrorists, the

initial attraction is often to the group, or community of believers, rather

than to an abstract ideology or to violence” (Crenshaw, 1988) .

Indeed, it is the image of such strong cohesiveness and solidarity

among extremist groups that makes them more attractive than some

prosocial collectives as a way to find belonging (Johnson & Feldman,1982)

Conclusion: These three factors - injustice, identity, and belonging –

have been found often to co-occur in terrorists and to strongly influence

decisions to enter terrorist organizations and to engage in terrorist

activity. Some analysts even have suggested that the synergistic effect

of these dynamics forms the real “root cause” of terrorism, regardless of

ideology. Luckabaugh and colleagues (1997), concluded

“the real cause or psychological motivation for joining is the great need

for belonging, a need to consolidate one's identity. A need to belong,

along with an incomplete personal identity, is a common factor that cuts

across the groups.” Jerrold Post (1984) has similarly theorized that

“the need to belong, the need to have a stable identity, to resolve a split

and be at one with oneself and with society- … is an important bridging

concept which helps explain the similarity in behavior of terrorists in

groups of widely different espoused motivations and composition.”