Explain frustration-aggression hypothesis and narcissism and narcissism aggression as each

relates to a terrorist personality. Your response must be at least 500 words in length. Explain the
nature and extent of terrorism research since 9/11. Analyze the definition of terrorism in relation
to a terrorist. How has the definition of domestic terrorism changed since the events of 9/11
terrorist attacks? Your response must be at least 500 words in length.

Explain frustration-aggression hypothesis and narcissism and narcissism aggression

Socio-psychological factors of development of terrorism, including concept of

"contributing events" as well as hypothesis "frustration-aggression" are investigated. Specific

features and the external factors promoting involving into terrorism are analyzed. The link

between frustration (being prevented from attaining a goal or engaging in behavior) and

aggression has been discussed in psychology for more than half a century. Some even view it as

a “master explanation” for understanding the cause of human violence. The basic premise of the

frustration-aggression (FA) hypothesis is: Aggression is always produced by frustration, and

Frustration always produces aggression. When subjected to empirical scrutiny, however,

research has shown that frustration does not inevitably lead to aggression. Sometimes, for

example, it results in problem solving or dependent behaviors. And aggression is known to

occur even in the absence of frustration. Thus it is not reasonable to view frustration alone as a

necessary and sufficient causal factor. Thus it is not reasonable to view frustration alone as a

necessary and sufficient causal factor. In an important reformulation of the FA hypothesis,

Berkowitz (19897) posited that it was only “aversive” frustration that would lead to aggression.

The newly proposed progression was that frustration would lead to anger, and that anger – in the

presence of aggressive cues – would lead to aggression. While subsequent research findings

have, at times, been inconsistent or contradictory, “it is reasonable to conclude that aversive

stimuli do facilitate, but probably not instigate, aggressive behavior”. It takes the utmost account

of the interaction between external (political and social) and internal (psychological) factors in
explaining the essence of terrorism. According to the frustration-aggression hypothesis, a

terrorist's behavior is his/her answer to the frustration of different political, economic, and

personal needs/goals. Narcissism aggression involves a pervasive grandiosity, an extreme desire

for attention, a sense of entitlement, a willingness to exploit or mistreat others, an excessive need

for admiration and a lack of empathy. Narcissists can be fragile too and prone to outbursts of

humiliated rage. Their grandiose self-beliefs are built on foundations as solid as quicksand,

hence the need for constant admiration and attention, shoring up their unstable sense of self.

Indeed “narcissistic rage” has been posed by more than one observer as the primary

psychological precipitant of terrorist aggression. In developmental context the way in which this

evolves is that as children the nascent terrorists are deeply traumatized, suffering chronic

physical abuse and emotional humiliation. This creates a profound sense of fear and personal

vulnerability that becomes central to their self-concept. To eliminate this fear and create a more

tolerable self-image, such individuals feel the need to "kill off" their view of themselves as

victims. They buttress their own self-esteem by devaluing others. The result of this devaluation

of others - what some have termed "malignant narcissism" - muffles their internal voice of reason

and morality. Whatever sense of “esteem” has developed in that process is extraordinarily

fragile. Particularly vulnerable to any slights, insults or ideas that threaten to shatter the façade of

self-worth. Such insults as “narcissistic injuries”.

 Explain the nature and extent of terrorism research since 9/11

It might be questioned, of course, whether the study of terrorism especially since 9/11

has become disproportionate to the actual incidence of the phenomenon.  After all, poverty and

malnutrition kill millions more people every year than the few thousand who die in terrorist

attacks, and terrorism is actually declining by some measures. We suffer from what Cass

Sunstein has called “probability neglect”, tending to overestimate the statistical odds of dying in

an attack. This is because terrorism induces what “an availability cascade”, capturing the

headlines but obscuring the fact that death from terrorism is actually a rather rare event. The

traditional approach to this topic has been to try to understand terrorists as individuals or as

leaders, and the wave of terrorist acts since 9/11 has given this field new impetus. “Countering

this new level of threat requires understanding of such leaders as Osama bi Laden and Shoko

Asahara”, Jerrold Post and Stephen Walker argue. “To apply psychological operations

effectively to terrorism, the attributes of the target must be specified, particularly leadership and

pattern of decision making. One cannot effectively target a group without a clear understanding

of its leaders and decision structures, which vary widely from group to group”.

Analyze the definition of terrorism in relation to a terrorist.

Terrorism is an intentional form of violence that involves targeted attacks which are

designed to intentionally scare, intimidate, to ‘terrorize’ for a political purpose. Attacks are

usually directed at immediate targets such as people, events, or institutions and a wider audience

whom protagonists aim to intimidate, shock or threaten. By so doing, terror groups intend to

arouse support for their political discourse while undermining rival, usually dominant, ideologies

as part of an overarching strategy to win concessions or defeat the declared enemy. These forms

of political violence can be relatively inexpensive and undertaken by small numbers of activists.
Hence acts of terrorism are considered to be a form of asymmetrical warfare, committed by

marginalized groups who often resort to such tactics because they lack more conventional

political resources and avenues for engagement.

How has the definition of domestic terrorism changed since the events of 9/11

terrorist attacks?

Americans watched in horror as the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, left nearly 3,000

people dead in New York City, Washington, D.C., and Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Nearly 20

years later, they watched in sorrow as the nation’s military mission in Afghanistan – which

began less than a month after 9/11 – came to a bloody and chaotic conclusion. A review of U.S.

public opinion in the two decades since 9/11 reveals how a badly shaken nation came together,

briefly, in a spirit of sadness and patriotism; how the public initially rallied behind the wars in

Afghanistan and Iraq, though support waned over time; and how Americans viewed the threat of

terrorism at home and the steps the government took to combat it. Since 9/11, jihadists have

killed 107 people inside the United States. This death toll is similar to that from far-right

terrorism (consisting of anti-government, militia, white supremacist, and anti-abortion violence),

which has killed 114 people. United States has also seen attacks in recent years inspired

by black nationalist.