Psychological perspectives on terrorist motivations and profiles

Psychology Terrorism

THE STUFF IT'S MADE OF

Psychology Terrorism

Psychological Profile of a Terrorist

More than four decades of investigation on the profiling of terrorists yielded two major findings (Hudson, 1999; Nance, 2008). First, there does not seem to a single terrorist personality by which they can be profiled. Terrorism psychologists, political scientists and sociologists shared this consensus. Terrorist personalities are as varied as practitioners in the legal profession or any group. Terrorists do not possess neatly identifiable personality traits by which they can be visibly detected. Second, terrorists are not typically diagnosably psychopathic or mentally sick. Although they act and proceed with their task out of a delusional view of the world, they are actually and ironically sane and quite deliberate (Hudson, Nance).

Terrorist groups are carefully and highly selected during recruitment, although their top leaders may possess psychopathic traits (Hudson, 1999; Nance, 2008). But members cannot depose a psychopathic leader. A typical terrorist is, thus, not only recognizably mentally deficient or disturbed. He is also not visibly distinguishable from normal persons by outward appearance and behavior. Terrorist groups recruit members who possess normal or average physical appearance, which will give them away, except when they have been described and identified by security personnel as to their physical characteristics. They are typically healthy, in their twenties, strong and well-trained. Leaders are in their 30s to 60s. A developmental and ecological framework illustrates the feasibility of creating situations, which can convince communities in accepting terror and destruction as a necessary, defensible and even a "pro-social: act. The framework focuses on the development of leaders, volunteers, support communities and the link between these communities and society itself (Lociceo & Sinclair, 2008).

II. Historical and Socio-cultural Antecedents to September 11

Analysts in the 70s and 80s presumed that terrorists, viewed as normative, would avoid the use of weapons of mass destruction because they would antagonize the public and lose its support (Hudson, 1999). Trends through the past four decades, however, negated the common expectation in the case of religious terrorist groups or cults. It was predicted that religious sects with a millenarian, messianic or apocalyptic bent would be the first to use weapons of mass destruction. Indeed, religious fundamentalist and new religious groups advocated the need for mass-destruction terrorism. These groups grew in the 90s and cultivated a new view and attitude towards violence. It was an extra-normative kind, which seeks to inflict maximum violence against a declared enemy. Aum Shinrikyo developed a systematic program for the creation and use of these weapons in the 90s and successfully inaugurated these on the Tokyo subway in March, 1995. New breeds of terrorists sprouted and terrorist groups began recruiting members with technical expertise. Terrorist incidents decreased but the threats increased. The combined mindsets of four groups present particularly dangerous, potential or actual, threats to the United States. They are the guerrilla-terrorist groups Liberation Tigers orTamil Elan and the Hizballah; the terrorist group Al-Qaida; and the terrorist cult Aum Shinrikyo (Hudson). The psychology of terrorists was at best only theoretical. It used to be quite challenging for lack of access to terrorist for information. Despite the lack of pattern, however, motivations for terror have been identified (Kershaw, 2010). These are the path to violence, a strong life in the group, moral questions advocated, the threat of humiliation or shame for trying to back out, especially for suicide bombers; the promise of great adventure and "to change the world (Kershaw);"

III. Studies on Mental Illness of Terrorists

These studies concur on the absence of trauma, however, abhorrent, seen to cause long-term psychopathology (Alexander & Klein, 2005). These specialists agree that the psychological outcome of studies was resilience rather than psychopathology. And the trauma can even develop positive outcomes, such as greater community or family cohesiveness, a clearer appraisal of their life values, and priorities, and a greater sense of personal strength and self-confidence (Alexander & Klein).

Despite the access to actual terrorists, research has remained limited (Kershaw, 2010). The accounts given by interviewed extremists, mostly militant Islamists, have been hard to verify. Researchers themselves do not follow uniform paths, which can explain radicalization. Some of them attribute it to religion, some to politics and power, and the rest to a range of psychological and social influences and motivations (Kershaw).