Definition and historical context of terrorism

Terrorism involves using or threatening violence to affect governments or frighten the public, often driven by political or religious motives.

Terrorism has existed for centuries, appearing in recorded history as a tool for influencing power structures. For instance, during the French Revolution in 1789, violent acts were used to challenge authority and spread revolutionary ideas. Over the past 200 years, terrorism has changed in form, with modern examples commonly including bombings, taking hostages, and hijacking vehicles or aircraft.

Shift in understanding terrorism

Early views on terrorism, particularly in studies from the late 1960s, often linked it to individual pathology - a term meaning a psychological disorder or internal flaw within a person that leads to abnormal behaviour.

However, this perspective has largely been rejected in modern psychology. Instead, experts now emphasise that terrorism stems from broader environmental and social factors surrounding the individual, such as cultural, political, or economic conditions.

Social identity theory and in-group favouritism in terrorism

Social identity theory explains how people derive part of their self-concept from the groups they belong to, leading to behaviours that favour their own group while disadvantaging others. In the context of terrorism, individuals may strongly identify with an in-group - a social group they see themselves as part of, such as a political or religious faction. This identification can create a sharp divide with an out-group, perceived as opponents like anti-terrorist forces or rival societies.

How social identity theory applies to terrorism

• Exaggeration of differences - Terrorists might amplify distinctions between their in-group and the out-group, such as through symbols like uniforms or clothing, to reinforce group boundaries.
• In-group favouritism - By prioritising their own group's interests, such as a national or ideological cause, terrorists may engage in discriminatory acts against the out-group. This behaviour can boost their self-esteem by making them feel superior or protected within their group.

Realistic conflict theory and intergroup competition

Realistic conflict theory builds on ideas of group division by proposing that hostility arises when groups compete for limited resources, such as political power or social status. This competition creates negative attitudes and discriminatory behaviour between the groups.

In terrorism, this theory applies when terrorists view their in-group as in direct rivalry with an out-group over goals like territorial control or ideological dominance. For example, political or social tensions can fuel perceptions of threat, leading to aggressive actions to secure advantages for their side.

Obedience to authority and agentic states in terrorism

Obedience refers to following orders from someone perceived as having authority, often overriding personal morals. In terrorism, individuals may carry out violent acts by obeying leaders, such as religious or political figures, who command them.

Key concepts in obedience applied to terrorism

• Agentic state - This occurs when a person shifts from acting independently to functioning as an 'agent' for an authority figure, reducing their sense of personal responsibility. Terrorists in this state might follow commands to commit atrocities, believing the leader holds ultimate accountability.
• Diffusion of responsibility - Here, individuals feel less accountable for harmful actions because they share or transfer blame to the authority or group. This can make it easier to participate in terrorism, as the person rationalises that the leader or cause bears the moral weight.

Research support: Milgram's study on obedience

• Aim - Milgram's 1963 experiment investigated how far people would go in obeying authority, even when it involved harming others.
• Method - Participants were instructed by an experimenter (authority figure) to administer what they believed were electric shocks to a learner for wrong answers in a memory task. The shocks increased in voltage, up to a dangerous level.
• Results - 65% of participants continued to the maximum 450-volt shock, showing high obedience levels. They often did so because they felt the experimenter was responsible.
• Application to terrorism - This mirrors how terrorists might obey leaders to carry out attacks, diffusing responsibility and continuing despite moral doubts.

Some terrorists act in an autonomous state - making independent decisions and fully endorsing their actions as right. Others might experience moral strain, feeling internal conflict but proceeding due to pressure.

Situational factors and social roles in terrorism

Situational factors refer to environmental influences that shape behaviour, often more powerfully than personal traits. In terrorism, the social context and assigned roles can lead ordinary people to commit extreme acts.

Research support: Zimbardo's Stanford prison experiment

• Aim - Zimbardo's 1971 study examined how social roles affect behaviour in a simulated prison environment.
• Method - Student volunteers were randomly assigned roles as prisoners or guards in a mock prison. The experiment was planned for two weeks but stopped after six days due to escalating abuse.
• Results - Guards became increasingly authoritarian and abusive, while prisoners showed signs of distress and submission. This demonstrated how situational pressures and roles could lead to dehumanising behaviour.
• Application to terrorism - Suicide bombers or terrorists might be influenced by their assigned roles in a group or situation, leading to actions they wouldn't take independently. For some, this creates moral strain if they internally resist, but the social context overrides personal will.

Social impact theory and group influence in terrorism

Social impact theory explains how individuals are influenced by others, particularly when the source of influence is strong, immediate, and numerous. The theory proposes that the impact increases with the strength of the message, the closeness in time or space, and the number of sources.

In terrorism, this applies when group members agree on the acceptability of violent acts. A strong, unified message from leaders or peers, combined with the immediacy of planning and the history of previous attacks, heightens the impact. This can make terrorists more likely to proceed, as the collective agreement normalises the behaviour and amplifies its perceived validity.