Critical Evaluation of Psychological Interpretations of Terrorist Activity

This essay critically evaluates the validity of psychological interpretations of terrorist activity. It examines various psychological theories, including psychodynamic, social psychological, and rational choice theories, and explores their strengths and weaknesses in explaining terrorist behavior. The essay also discusses the limitations of psychological approaches to understanding terrorism, highlighting the complex interplay of social, political, and economic factors that contribute to the phenomenon. It concludes by emphasizing the need for a process-based understanding of terrorism, recognizing that it is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon that cannot be fully explained by any single theory.

Critical evaluation of the validity of psychological interpretations of terrorist
activity.
Postgraduate Assignment Cover and Feedback Sheet
to be submitted with the front page of every assignment
Registration number _______MB16199___________________
Module code ___________SC557 _________
Class tutor ____ ________ Professor Pete Fussed
Date of Submission _24th of April 2018____________
Title of essay: Assignment -Essay
________________________________________________________________
Word count: 5000
x I understand that my work may be submitted to a plagiarism detection service such as Turnitin, and that use of the
service complies with UK Data Protection Law. www.essex.ac.uk/records_management/policies/students.aspx
Main Strengths
You can improve your work in future by
Final mark
1

Critical evaluation of the validity of psychological interpretations of terrorist
activity.
Introduction
The upsurge of terror attacks in different European cities and capital in recent times
and the past 9/11 terror attack has made terrorism is a heated debate and unprecedented
across political, media and academic discourses. Terrorism is a complex phenomenon, and
despite the proliferation of research, analysis, and commentary, some interconnected
problems persist in the study and understanding of terrorism. There are a plethora of
definitions identified by the researchers but still, agree on one definition does not exist. The
fact remains that one person’s terrorist is another freedom’s freedom fighter (Bjørgo, 2007).
There has been a growing consensus among researchers, policy make, and governments about
the core meaning of the concept of terrorism. However, academics and policymakers all
agreed that terrorism is the unlawful and illegal use of intimidation and violence for the
persuasion of the political aims and objectives (Bjørgo, 2007). Hoffman(1999) describe it as a
technique designed to have psychological repercussions beyond the direct target, while
Whittaker (2004) refer to terrorism as premeditated, politically motivated use of violence or
its threat to intimidate or coerce a government or the general public.
The typology of terrorism is not simple as actors can be characterised in terms of
multiple variables hence, the puzzle for academics in the field and policymakers and
politicians is how psychological profile a terrorist. Since terrorist does not have the same
personality, it is challenging to embrace a consistent profiling technique to identify
perpetrators. For instance, it is seen that no suicide bombers reflect the typical profile of the
suicide personality similarly they are not uneducated, poor or depressed. Most of them were
middle who were earlier involved in paying jobs. Even the sons of millionaires were involved
in terrorism; they all seemed to be entirely normal members of their families (Hassan, 2001:
4). According to Bloomer and Monaghan (2015), it is not easy to identify the factors that
drive the people towards terrorism and the terrorists also not likely to volunteer as an
experimental subject in order to investigate their activities that lead to the painful
conclusions. In addition, one group's terrorist is another group's freedom fighter, as the
millions of Arabs who support Palestinian suicide bombers will attest. On the basis of these
complexities, it can be said that the psychology of terrorism is presented more by theory and
opinion instead of science. At a minimum, there are three approaches to studying terrorism:
macro-sociological, psychological, and psychosocial. This paper will focus on the
psychological interpretations of terrorist activity.
2

Critical evaluation of the validity of psychological interpretations of terrorist
activity.
MAIN BODY
For the psychological analysis, it is seen that there may be differentiation in the
temperaments, ideologies, thought processes, and cognitive capacities of terrorists under the
political categories, hierarchical levels, and roles (Taylor and Ryan 1988; Reich 1998). One
of the most popular psychological definitions of terrorism consists of disruptive or
psychopathological personalities (Post and Gold, 2002). While research is speculative, some
researchers have tried to analyse terrorists by their propensity for violence or an inability to
control their aggressive impulses. However, impulsive aggressiveness is not a typical trait of
terrorists. Likewise, most terrorists are not "pathological" in any traditional sense (Horgan,
2010). Paradoxically, a comatose fear of death may underlie much of the
motivation behind terrorism and reactions to terrorism. As per the
macrosociological approach, the researchers view terrorism as a reflection activity of various
social defections or disputed trends in the social system.
Terrorism has always been related to a number of causes that have provoked the other types
of violence like protests, riots, revolutions, civil wars and international conflicts (de la Corte,
2018). The major root causes of terrorism are found in poverty, cultural and regional disputes,
regimes, discrimination etc. There is a number of studies have tried to present the
interrelation between sociological variables and terrorist campaigns which are inconclusive
(Crenshaw, 1995; Laqueur, 2003). Classifying these sources is difficult because minorities
usually promote terrorism and the terrorist’s perspective often involves a severe deformation
of social reality (Rich, 2013). As research is speculative, there are some researchers have tried
to analyse terrorists on the basis of their propensity for violence in order to control their
aggressive impulses.
3

Critical evaluation of the validity of psychological interpretations of terrorist
activity.
However, the impulsive aggressiveness is not a typical characteristic of terrorists. Likewise,
most terrorists are not "pathological" in any traditional sense (Horgan, 2010) According to
Eriksson (2011), the dichotomy of “Nature vs Nurture” is out-dated and not consistent in
explaining any form of human behaviour such as violence including violence in the current
state of research in the particular field. The reason behind the violence is the complex
interaction of biological, social and emotional factors that occur over time. Many of the
causes are more prominent as compared with others for certain types of individuals and
violence and aggression types.
The link between the personality traits and terrorism sounds like a puzzle. Most
psychologists suggested that people involved in terrorist activities do not have a distinct
personality. However, psychologists like LaFree and Ackerman hypothesise certain
personality traits “contribute to the decision to turn to terrorist violence. Social psychologists
are predisposed to explain the psychological characteristics of individuals as a result of
several processes of socialisation and social interaction. This ideal also applies to the mental
attributes of terrorists. Previously, some researchers suggested that the process of joining a
terrorist group was heavily influenced by the prevailing political and social environment
shared by friends and relatives (de la Corte, 2018).
Naturally, growing up in an environment marked by radical ideas and values could
lead one to a join terrorist group which embraces the same beliefs and values. For example,
many members of Euskadi Ta Askatasuna(ETA), Red Brigades or Irish Republican Army
(IRA) were born and raised in families respectively attached to the subculture of Basque
nationalism(Romero, 2006): (de la Corte, 2018). In other cases, joining a terrorist
organisation is the result of making contact and relationships with people who embrace
extremist political or religious ideas. Sageman (2004) states that personal paths, interactions,
and choices may lead young Muslims to become radical jihadists.
The psychologist perspective is that modifiable social and psychological factors contribute to
the genesis of the terrorist mindset. In contrast to sociological theories that emphasise factors
influencing the behaviour of an entire group, psychological theories of terrorist behaviour
primarily stress individual elements. For instance, psychoanalyst claimed that Psychoanalysis
is based on the proposition that much of mental life is unconscious, that psychological
development proceeds in stages based on infantile sexual fantasies, and that psychological
distress derives from unresolved intrapsychic conflict regarding those fantasies (Gabbard
4

Critical evaluation of the validity of psychological interpretations of terrorist
activity.
2000). The theory share the notion that parenting, as opposed to intrinsic temperament,
determines psychological personality and health, unconscious forces exclude unpleasant
thoughts from the consciousness; and the relationships with others are controlled by
unconscious forces such as projection which is the theory that one irrationally attributes one's
own attitude to others (Wallerstein 1995; Gabbard 2000) However, despite its influence on
writers in the political science, sociology, history, and criminology literature, this model has
weak logical, theoretical, and empirical foundations” (Beck, 2005). A study by Taylor (2000)
suggested that many of the personal traits or characteristics researchers have identified as the
belonging to the terrorist are not specific to the terrorist and do not serve to distinguish one
type of terrorist from another. Also, the routes by which terrorism differs in a psychological
form are not specific along with the similar features between the movements of the terrorists.
Hence, psychological approaches to understanding terrorist behaviour reflect inclinations to
explain extreme behaviour in ‘simple psychological terms that obscure the real complexities
(Taylor, 1988) :(Wardlaw, 1989).
Another notion is that terrorists are psychopathic, thus if they can extend violence that
resulting in the death of civilian that shows that they might lack empathy that is the reason
behind their antisocial and irresponsible behaviour and also when the terrorist even not
content with the damage but subsequently blamed for the act. However, there remains little
to support the argument that terrorists can or should be necessarily regarded as psychopathic
owing to the nature of the offences committed. These realities seem less compatible with the
pathological egocentricities consistent with psychopathic personalities.
Taylor (1988) argued that most of the psychopath’s reasons are personal, fuelled and
sustained by elaborate personal perspectives. The terrorists might not face the consequences
of the terrorism while terrorism victims are chosen on the symbolic bases such as passengers,
soldiers etc. where they contrast with the victims of the psychopathic murders. There is very
less evidence of the fact that psychopathy is an element of the psychology of the
organizations of terrorists. In spite of the attractiveness of the subject, the terrorist movements
have been never seen in an an organisation due to the brutality of the behaviour involved.
Most analysts of terrorism do not think that personality factors account for terrorist
behaviour, nor do they see significant gender differences. On the basis of one of the findings
of the research, it is found that terrorism is mainly a group activity. The terrorist activities are
not the result of the psychopathology or the type of personality but the group solidarity and
5

Critical evaluation of the validity of psychological interpretations of terrorist
activity.
shared ideologies are the main causes of terrorism behaviour than any other determinants. As
per the critical analysis of the findings presented by Ross (1994) found that the psychological
signs of terrorism are still not effective and mature hence a theory suggested by the author
that reflects on the individuals predisposed in terrorism due to the developmental factors
comes to know about the specific desires after joining the underground groups. For example,
Braungart and Braungart (1992) suggested that the developmental processes of youth can be
better explained by the Weathermen rather than an individual psychological attribute.
It has been proposed that candidates engaged in terrorism are young people lacking
self- esteem who have strong or even desperate needs to consolidate their identities (Olsson
1988). Quayle, Ward, and Taylor(1994) reported that many of these people are politically
violent that wants to seek a sense of worth and esteem. As per the theory by psychologist Erik
Erikson (1957) that adolescents reach the stage of identity formation where the ideologies
start assisting in self-definition. The opinion is consistent with Freud's (1953-1974)
evaluation that the fact of self-determination might not be separate with the impulse for the
destruction. This view also resembles the theories proposed by Frantz Fanon (1965), that
claims that violence against the colonial oppression which not only liberates the body but also
the self -esteem.
Mesulam (2000) offered his opinion in the field through the neo-Cartesian aphorism
that reflects on "We fight; therefore, we are." It states that youth is continuously turning
towards Charles Bishop, a fifteen-year-old who flew a small airplane into a bank in early
2002, leaving the political violence for the desperate search of worth and esteem get alone
(e.g., perhaps a suicide note declaring his allegiance with al Qaeda) (Rosenberg, Waddell, and
Smalley 2002), yet they may be very eager to join groups-a behaviour offering an
instantaneous grafting of identity. These identity craved young people are likely to be
motivated by the wish to enhance the effective tutelage of a leader that forms an anaclitic
devotion.
Bandura (1990) chose a different way of defining an individual behaviour in which he
claimed that terrorism is the result of the principled resort to damage in spite of an
unrestrained impulse. For this, the author investigated the psychological processes under
which the individuals disengage the internal regulatory principles which are used as a
restraint to violence. Three effective points had been identified of the development in the self-
regulatory process which is, in the case when the reprehensible conduct can be turned as
6

Critical evaluation of the validity of psychological interpretations of terrorist
activity.
justifiable, its negative effects can be reduced and the last the victim devalued. A capacity is
also noted namely regulatory casual agency for the displacement of the responsibility on the
enemy. Regarding causal agency, he also noted a tendency to displace responsibility onto the
enemy (Bandura, 1990).
In contrast, Pearlstein (1991) argued psychological hypotheses are based on
speculation or are derived from such a small number of cases that the findings cannot be
considered reliable. In other words, the study of terrorism still lacks the foundation of
extensive primary data based on interviews and life histories of individuals engaged in
terrorism. Furthermore, Crenshaw (1992) indicated that psychology studies of terrorism are
more focused on the limitations of the particular beliefs and ideologies and it is vital to
remember that the logic of terrorism is autonomous which is unconventional. The beliefs
systems are derivative rather than original. Hence it is very important to understand the
beliefs of the terrorism practitioners on the basis of their own terms and also they should not
be excluded from their analysis in a conventional sense (Reich, 1990). Also, Sprinzak (1990)
stresses that the situations caused ideological terrorism is not identical to the principles of
protest or the unconventional political behaviour.
A rational choice theory is embedded with the notion that terrorist actions are derived
from conscious, rational, calculated decision to take a particular type of activities as the
optimum strategy to accomplish a socio-political goal (Eriksson, 2011). It is derived from
economics, assumes that behavioural proclivity can be used to explain the rules of the game
how changes in policy which is played between the governments and terrorists that might
predict the behaviour. In the cases when the most of the terrorists do not come up with the
diagnostic criterion for mental illness then they must be concluded as rational. There should
be a distinction between real or strategic choice theory and other individual or group
psychological theories of terrorism (Eriksson, 2011). Crenshaw (2000) has related that the
major objectives of the terrorists are not likely to be accomplished by the chosen action
which in turns difficult to be supported by the rationalist terrorism theory.
In addition to it, the shocking inhuman way of attacking the innocent victims
challenge the understanding of the rational behaviour. On the basis of the incoherent
motivations and political inefficacy, it is suggested by many of the authors and researchers
that a terrorist is not a rational actor (Ginges, 1997). For instance, the African National
Congress(ANC) used terrorism as part of its exceptional successful strategy to overthrow the
7

Critical evaluation of the validity of psychological interpretations of terrorist
activity.
apartheid government of South Africa and the Hezbollah’s suicide bombing campaign of
1983-1985 had direct consequences on the American, French, and Israeli withdrawal and
development of a Shi’a-controlled society in significant parts of Lebanon. Furthermore,
various evidence of the history proclaimed that terrorism is sometimes practical and a low-
cost approach that is used by the subordinate groups which allow them to leverage their
power for the achievement of the end goals with greater ease and flexibility
(McCormick,2003).
More also, evidence suggests that there are very fewer people who believe that
terrorism is the cause that provoke them to be a terrorist (Schbley 2000). In addition to it,
even the most strategic benefits do not provoke the people towards violence. Some of the
terrorists like “lone wolf” terrorist Theodore Kaczynski admits violence as a result of
irrational motives. Hence the rare and accurate decision of becoming a terrorist cannot be
explained with the help of rational choice theory. But at the same time, the rational choice
theory cannot be criticised fully as it does not offers results on the fact that why only less
minority of the people becomes terrorists instead its emphasis on what the rate group
members do in different conditions and situations.
According to Keane (2001), in the short of empirically validated typology that states
about the determinants of terrorists become obstacles in analysing theories for the actors who
exhibit different behaviour in different conditions. There is no behavioural theory that is
expected to throw all examples. Although, Crenshaw (1986:386) laid emphasis on the fact
that terrorism might not be due to the specific or particular psychopathological situation it
does not mean that the political decision of being involved in the terrorist organization is not
affected by the psychological desires. Some of the terrorists sometimes present
psychological disorders at the same time they can also exhibit the identifiable psychological
traits which are influenced by the social factors (Crenshaw,1986).
Frustration-aggression hypothesis (FA) leads the politically inspired people to a stage where
there is no option of going back where the potential terrorist energy emerges and turns into
violence (Berkowitz, 1969). The hypothesis is based on the theory that people resulted in
violence because of frustration author politically or individually and this led some people to
terrorism in the face of oppression
Davies(1973:251) stated frustration always occurs due to violence and this theory
might explain the terrorist violence of either groups or individuals. This theory on terrorism
8

Critical evaluation of the validity of psychological interpretations of terrorist
activity.
has been criticised in various terms or on the basis of several grounds. There are a lot of
people residing in frustrating conditions but do not turns to terrorism that says that terrorism
is not an attempt of last resort for those living in struggling or frustrating conditions.
Although, frustration may play a plausible part in the genesis of some political violence.
However, the hypothesis is not by itself sufficient to explain terrorism. For instance, the
hypothesis cannot be used to justify why 7/7 London bombers turn to terrorism. For example,
Mohammad Sidique Khan, the ringleader, was model of the society that guides the youth to
away from the crime and violent activities by developing gym in a basement of a mosque and
organizing outdoor activities for the refreshment and relaxation of the people (Aslam and
Laville, 2018). Tanweer, 22 belong to well family in Beeston and achieved high in school
and sports (Aslam and Laville, 2018).
Similarly to FA, relative deprivation theory is based on the notion that through
injustice, the treatment received from some government that has robbed them of their identity
and freedom as the motive for their joining a terrorist group (Crenshaw 1986). The theory is
subjective because it is not easy to analyse the level of oppression itself as a social and
political relationship and as the implications of oppression might be felt at the greater or
lesser degrees by the people in a community. Webber, (2007) indicated that there are a lot of
instruments and tools for the assessment of the prejudice and biasedness but these are
inconclusive and there is no general toon which has been validated yet and published for
assessing the oppression. Hence, oppression theory cannot be used to conceptualise the
perception drives the behaviour of terrorists. Although, oppression has shown to breed
terrorism in places like Yemen, Pakistan or Palestine. The fact remains that if the groups
involved in this atrocities can be classified as a terrorist because they have been deprived of
their dignity, respect, and identity, and these very factors are worth fighting for in their case.
Oppression is not justifiable as the main factors that can drive an individual to terrorism
because very few individuals of aggrieved minorities go on to become active terrorists.
On the other hand relative deprivation theory focus on economic disparities as the
causes of terrorism. Gurr (2016) explains in Why Men Rebel that a difference between
expected and achieved welfare leads to discontent in spite of an an absolute standard of
deprivation. As per the author, relative deprivation is used for denoting the tension that in
results develops discrepancy between the "ought and is" of the satisfaction and contentment
that leads the men towards violence and terrorism. Ina country or society where rare or fewer
9

Critical evaluation of the validity of psychological interpretations of terrorist
activity.
communities face economic biasedness and inequalities in terms of living standards, wealth,
resources ethnic disputes more likely to occur. In simple terms, conflict arises in the cases
when dominant ethnic community exercises control over the economic opportunities and
leaving members disadvantaged. It also led to increase in the political violence in the multi-
ethnic states (Merari,2000).
The hypothesis provides a psychological approach for the explanation of how the
collective dissatisfaction is turned out to be political violence. However, studies have shown
that most individual involved in terrorism is neither deprived or frustrated. Some are even
born with silver spoon. Relative or absolute depreciation maybe the reasons why Boko
Haram( The Terrorist Group in Nigeria) can recruit individual to turn to terrorism. The
terrorist group provides basic needs the government cannot offer and but supplied by the
group, but it does not justify them becoming a suicide bomber. For the core members of the
group, anxiety about death may play a significant role in the indoctrination of terrorism and
suicide bombing unconscious fear of mortality, of leaving no legacy.
A new report by aid agency Mercy Corps (U.S.-based group) interviewed 47 former
members about the reasons they entered Boko Haram.(Mercy Corps, 2018). The findings
show that some are scared and some faced high pressure from the families and friends while
some of them saw the group as the least bad option in impoverished and marginalised
northeast Nigeria and for getting protection and immunity from persecution by them so they
could continue with my business. There is a possibility that absolute deprivation brings
terrorist sentiments mostly the members of an oppressed underclass ignites terrorist
sentiments (Mercy Corps, 2018).
Research has shown that some terrorists have a criminal mentality and had previous
lives as criminals. A study conducted on behalf of Canadian Security Intelligence Service on
Personality Traits and Terrorism. For instance, Gottschalk and Gottschalk (2004)
administered two personality measures to 90 individuals involved in Palestinian or Jewish
terrorist groups (Gottschalk and Gottschalk, 2004).
10

Critical evaluation of the validity of psychological interpretations of terrorist
activity.
According to Gottschalk & Gottschalk’s findings, the personality traits of different
terrorists are different which are analysed as bordering on the mental illness. On the basis of
this recognition, the individuals in different terrorist groups have different personality traits
from the individuals who are not involved in terrorist activities. This argument is supported
by LaFree and Ackerman,(2009:349) that terrorist personality is misguided and their
personality trait may seem at most contribute to the decision to turn to terrorist violence.
Most scholars in the field subscribed to the belief that psychodynamic framework can
be used to explain terrorist behaviour (Crayton, 1983:25). Although it is easier to observe
these traits among terrorists, Pearlstein(1991) argued that psychoanalytic concept of
narcissism are the most effective and satisfactory theory associated with the personal logic of
political terrorism. However, the emphasis on narcissism explicitly has decreased
tremendously in contemporary research. It is regarded as first generation notions without
authentic empirical support. By looking at the profile of London or Paris perpetrators, this
terrorist is not traumatised nor suffer chronic physical abuse or emotional humiliation. In
another word, a personality trait is not thought to predict a specific behaviour directly;
instead, a personality trait is viewed as a predisposition to perform a particular category of
behaviours (Ajzen and Fishben, 1980).
Based on the different theories and analysis that can be used for psychological
profiling of individual, there is no single that has gained ascendancy as an explanatory model
for all types of violence. Thus, by viewing terrorism as a process might help develop an
understanding of psychological approaches to terrorism. The behavioural theory of Taylor
(2000) can be used to draw an understanding of other forms of illegal activity of the root
causes of terrorism. The approach of process-based is valuable due to the number of reasons
but the broader social and political implications cannot be fully considered. By keeping the
process perspective in mind, the researchers can analyse the social and psychological terms
that lead the people towards violence and terrorism.
Terrorist attacks and criminal operations often require meticulous planning
preparation, and it is not even formed of crime that involves many dynamics which are
distinctive for each case. an uneven form of crime where many dynamics combine to create
situations that are distinctive to each case of involvement, or attempted involvement, in
terrorist violence(Donald, 2017).
11

Critical evaluation of the validity of psychological interpretations of terrorist
activity.
According to Horgan (2008), the analytical approaches are the best way to frame the
involvement which presents the procedural dimensions but at the same time equally sensitive
to each case. This is because efforts to profile terrorists have failed repetitively with the
perception that it is challenging to have a sound psychological contribution to understanding
the terrorist (Horgan, 2008:81). Hence, it is not only important to identify the policy-relevant
lessons for the development of counterterrorism initiatives where there are no such measures
and interventions present (Horgan, 2018).
Conclusion
After extensive research on this phenomenon, it can be concluded that terrorism is becoming
increasingly complex and varied. The Lack of clarity of the exact definition of the subject and
the fact that different organisations, countries have their own perspectives about the terrorism
even makes it more difficult. For instance, the rebels in Syria fighting against Bashar al-
Assad regime are regarded by United State and the Western countries as freedom fighters,
while Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah perceived them as terrorists. In the context of
physiological interpretations of terrorist activity, no single theory is applicable in
understanding the personality traits of individual terrorism; this is because of the uniqueness
of different individual that has been involved in terrorism for the last two decades. It will be
wrong to assume that that the only people involved in terrorism are Muslims or Islamic
fanatics; this will make it difficult to formulate any counterterrorism policies. I strongly
support Horgan (2008) statement that terrorism is a process because people just do not wake
up one day and decide to become a terrorist. It is a process that can release to political social
or economic reason. It is viewing terrorism as a process that will provide counterterrorism
experts, policymakers and government to develop an understanding of psychological
approaches to terrorism.
Another thing that has been forgotten by the colonisers like Britain and France is the
despicable terrorist strategies and tactics deployed to suppress from people and state from
liberation during the colonial days. The colonists committed crimes with impunity against
indigenous people or the colonies. Efforts at resistance are met with brutal reprisal,
sometimes massacre heading and mass killing. According to Fanon (1972), a colonised man
finds his freedom in and through violence. He believes violence is broader than bullets,
knives, and stones. Moreover, fundamentally, violence is a form of taking that which has
12

Critical evaluation of the validity of psychological interpretations of terrorist
activity.
been or will not be willingly surrendered. It is essential that the government try to understand
the past and why these people are rebellious.
More also, the foreign policy deployed by France and Britain on Libya was a failure. Libya
is now breeding ground for terrorists because of the weakness of the state. For instance,
Manchester terror attack was committed by Salman Abedi who has a link to Libya, visited the
country three weeks before the attack. It is clear that after the fall of Gaddafi’s regime,
radicalisation has become entrenched in Libya. According to Kidwai (2010), incoherent
behaviour has the U.S and western states ‘war on terrorism' is serving to breed terrorism.
Throughout the Arab world and parts of Islamic Africa, revolutions have encouraged Al
Qaeda 'look-alikes.' The decolonisation strategies or process so call campaign by the westerns
should not be connected to economic gains or neo-imperialism. It should not embrace the
practice of using capitalism, globalisation, and cultural imperialism to influence colonies
instead of military control (imperialism) or indirect political control (hegemony). It is
through this understanding that the fundamental causes and the root of terrorism can be
identified
13

Critical evaluation of the validity of psychological interpretations of terrorist
activity.
References
Ackerman, P. (2009). On weaving personality into a tapestry of traits. British Journal of
Psychology, 100(S1), pp.249-252.
Aslam, D. and Laville, S. (2018). Profile: Mohammad Sidique Khan. [online] the Guardian.
Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/jul/14/july7.uksecurity5 [Accessed 3
Apr. 2018].
Bandura, A. (1990). Mechanisms of moral disengagement. In W. Reich (Ed.), Origins of
terrorism: Psychologies, ideologies, theologies, states of mind (pp. 161-191). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Berkowitz, L. (1969). Roots of aggression. New York: Atherton Press.
Bjørgo, T. (2007). Root causes of terrorism. Enskede: TPB.
Bloomer, S. and Monaghan, R. (2015). Understanding terrorism: a socio-economic
perspective. Behavioral Sciences of Terrorism and Political Aggression, 7(2), pp.166-168.
Crenshaw, M. (1986). The psychology of political terrorism. In M. G. Hermann (Ed.),
Political Psychology: Contemporary problems and issues (pp. 379–413). London: Jossey-
Bass.
Crenshaw, M. (2000). The psychology of terrorism: An agenda for the 21st century. Political
Psychology21:405-20.
de la Corte, L. (2018). Explaining Terrorism: A Psychosocial Approach. [online]
Terrorismanalysts.com.Availableat:http://www.terrorismanalysts.com/pt/index.php/pot/
article/view/8/html [Accessed 16 Apr. 2018].
Erikson, E. and Erikson, K. (1957). The Confirmation of the Delinquent. Chicago Review,
10(4), p.15.
Eriksson, L. (2011). Rational Choice Theory. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
14

Critical evaluation of the validity of psychological interpretations of terrorist
activity.
FREUD, E. (1953). RECENT TRENDS IN APHASIC RESEARCH. American Journal of
Psychiatry, 110(3), pp.186-193.
Ginges, J. (1997). A psychological evaluation of different strategies for deterring terrorism.
Terrorism and Political Violence, 9(1), 170-185.
Gottschalk, M. & Gottschalk, S. (2004). Authoritarianism and pathological hatred: A social
psychological profile of the middle eastern terrorist. The American Sociologist, 35(2), 38-59.
Gurr, T. (2016). Why men rebel. London: Routledge.
Hassan, N. 2001. An arsenal of believers: Talking to the “human bombs.” The New Yorker
77:36.
Hoffman, B. 1998.Inside Terrorism. New York: Columbia University Press.
Holbrook, Donald (2017) Terrorism as process narratives: a study of pre-arrest media usage
and the emergence of pathways to engagement. Terrorism and Political Violence. ISSN 0954-
6553
Horgan, J.2003.The search for the terrorist personality. in Terrorists, victims, and society,
edited by A. Silke, 3-27. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Horgan, J. (2008). From Profiles to Pathways and Roots to Routes: Perspectives from
Psychology on Radicalization into Terrorism. The ANNALS of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science, 618(1), pp.80-94.
Horgan, J. (2018). Deradicalization or Disengagement? [online] Terrorismanalysts.com.
Available at: http://www.terrorismanalysts.com/pt/index.php/pot/article/view/32/html
[Accessed 16 Apr. 2018].
Keane, F. (2001). The mind of a terrorist. J. Baxter, & M. Downing The day that shook the
world: Understanding Sept. 11 (pp. 54-67). London: BBC Worldwide.
Kidwai, M. (2010). US policy towards the Muslim world. Lanham, Md.: University Press of
America.
LaFree, G., & Ackerman, G. (2009). The empirical study of terrorism: Social and legal
research. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 5, 347-374.
LaFree, G. (2017). Terrorism and the Internet. Criminology & Public Policy, 16(1), pp.93-98.
Marsella, A. J. (2003). Terrorism: Reflections on issues, concepts, and directions.
Moghaddam, F. M. and Marsella, A. J., Eds. Understanding Terrorism: Psychosocial Roots,
consequences, and interventions (pp. 11-48). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association
15

Critical evaluation of the validity of psychological interpretations of terrorist
activity.
Merari, A. (2000). Terrorism as a strategy of struggle: past and future. In M. Taylor and J.
Horgan (Eds), The Future of Terrorism (pp. 52–65). London: Frank Cass and Co.
Mercy Corps. (2018). The new threat for survivors of Boko Haram. [online] Available at:
https://www.mercycorps.org.uk/articles/nigeria/new-threat-survivors-boko-haram [Accessed
15 Apr. 2018].
McCormick, G. H. (2003). Terrorist Decision Making. Annual Review of Political Science.
6:473-507
Pearlstein, P. (1991). Censorship on Stylistic Grounds. Art Journal, 50(4), p.65.
Quayle, P., Ward, E. and Taylor, P. (1994). Transition metal promoted acetylene
isomerisation reactions:- Application to the synthesis of (+/-)-enterolactone. Tetrahedron
Letters, 35(47), pp.8883-8884.
Reich, W. (1990). Understanding terrorist behaviour: the limits and opportunities of
psychological inquiry. In W. Reich (Ed.) Origins of terrorism: Psychologies, ideologies,
theologies, states of mind (pp.261-279). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Reich, W. (1998). Understanding terrorist behaviour: the limits and opportunities of
psychological inquiry. In W. Reich (Ed.), Origins of Terrorism: Psychologies, Ideologies,
Theologies, States of Mind (pp. 261–79). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Rosenberg, D., L. Waddell, and S. Smalley. 2002. A troubled teenager’s tragic flight plan.
Newsweek, January 21.
Schbley, A. (2003). Defining religious terrorism: A causal and anthological profile. Studies in
Conflict and Terrorism, 26(2), 105-134.
Sprinzak, E. (1990). The psych political formation of extreme left terrorism in a democracy:
The case of the Weathermen. In W. Reich (Ed.), Origins of terrorism: Psychologies,
ideologies, theologies, states of mind (pp. 65-85). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, M. (1991). The fanatics: A behavioural approach to political violence. London:
Brasseys.
Taylor, M., and H. Ryan. 1988. Fanaticism, political suicide and terrorism. Terrorism 11:91-
111. U.S. Department of Homeland Security. 2004. Homeland Security Centres (HS Centres)
Program Broad Agency announcement: Homeland Security Centre for Behavioural and
Social Aspects of Terrorism and Counter-terrorism. Washington, DC: University Programs,
Office of Research and Development, Science and Technology.
Victoroff, J. (2005). The Mind of the Terrorist. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 49(1), pp.3-
42.
16

Critical evaluation of the validity of psychological interpretations of terrorist
activity.
Webber, C. (2007). Revaluating relative deprivation theory. Theoretical Criminology, 11(1),
pp.97-120.
Whittaker, D. J. 2004. The terrorism reader. London: Routledge Kegan Paul.
17

Critical evaluation of the validity of psychological interpretations of terrorist
activity.
18