This article was downloaded by: [North Dakota State University]

On: 06 November 2014, At: 21:28

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK

Journal of Security Education

Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wzse20

Social Psychological
Approaches to Understanding
and Preventing Terrorism
a
Anthony F. Lemieux PhD
a
Purchase College , State University of New York ,
NY, USA
Published online: 20 Oct 2008.

To cite this article: Anthony F. Lemieux PhD (2006) Social Psychological Approaches
to Understanding and Preventing Terrorism, Journal of Security Education, 1:4, 75-83,
DOI: 10.1300/J460v01n04_07

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J460v01n04_07

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the
information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.
However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,
or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views
expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the
Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any
losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,
and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the
Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,
 sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 21:28 06 November 2014
 Social Psychological Approaches
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 21:28 06 November 2014

to Understanding and Preventing Terrorism:

Toward an Interdisciplinary Perspective
Anthony F. Lemieux, PhD

ABSTRACT. Although social psychologists have had a long-standing

interest in intergroup relations and aggression, the attacks of September
11, 2001, and the ongoing threat of terrorism have prompted an exponen-
tial increase in the volume and breadth of related scholarship. Over the
past several years, a distinct body of research has emerged to address the
central questions of (1) who becomes a terrorist, (2) what motivates indi-
viduals to engage in terrorism, (3) responses to terrorism, and (4) steps to
reduce the threat of terrorism in the future. Recent scholarship has started
to adopt an increasingly interdisciplinary perspective, providing a more
comprehensive frame of analysis including social, political, historical,
cultural, and economic factors. doi:10.1300/J460v01n04_07 [Article cop-
ies available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-
HAWORTH. E-mail address: <docdelivery@haworthpress.com> Website
<http://www.HaworthPress.com> © 2006 by The HaworthPress, Inc. All rights
reserved.]

KEYWORDS. Social psychology, terrorism, emotions, intergroup

relations, motivation

Anthony F. Lemieux, PhD, is affiliated with Purchase College, State University of

New York, NY.
This project was partially supported by a Purchase College Faculty Research
Support Award.
Journal of Security Education, Vol. 1(4) 2006
http://jse.haworthpress.com
© 2006 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1300/J460v01n04_07 75
 76 JOURNAL OF SECURITY EDUCATION

Social psychologists have had a long-standing interest in factors that

are fundamental to terrorism including intra- and intergroup relations,
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 21:28 06 November 2014

prejudice, identity, poverty, and aggression, to name a few. However, in

the months and years following the September 11, 2001 attacks on the
World Trade Center and Pentagon, interest in the causes, consequences,
and prevention of terrorism became increasingly focused. The sudden
and dramatic increase in scholarship on terrorism and homeland secu-
rity is not unique to the field of social psychology. Rather, it appears to
be indicative of a broader cross-disciplinary trend toward research on
terrorism, which is among the most salient problems of our time.
For example, over the past several years my own scholarship in the
discipline has addressed both causal factors associated with the advent
of terrorism and other forms of political violence, including psychologi-
cal aspects of global poverty (Lemieux and Pratto 2002, 2003), as well
as responses to the September 11 attacks in the form of scapegoating
(Pratto and Lemieux 2006a), emotional responses as they relate to
group position (Pratto and Lemieux, 2006b), and peoples’ hopes and
fears for the future (Pratto, Lemieux, Glasford, and Henry 2003; Pratto,
Henry, Levin, Lemieux et al. 2002).
This paper aims to briefly highlight some of this research while fo-
cusing primarily on central themes and questions about terrorism that
have emerged in social psychology. Specifically, the issues of (1) who
becomes a terrorist, (2) what motivates terrorism, (3) responses to ter-
rorism, and (4) reducing the threat of terrorism in the future, are at the
core of much research on the topic.
Of fundamental importance to this field of inquiry is arriving at a
comprehensive operational definition of terrorism. Moghaddam (2005,
161) defines terrorism as “politically motivated violence, perpetrated
by individuals, groups, or state-sponsored agents, intended to instill
feelings of terror and helplessness in a population in order to influence
decision making and change behavior.” However, any in-depth analysis
must consider the influence of perspective (e.g., terrorist actions versus
legitimate military actions). As Marsella notes (2004, 15),“One per-
son’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter.”

WHO BECOMES A TERRORIST?

The person-situation interaction is central to the social psychological

study of terrorism. When applied to the question of “who becomes a ter-
rorist,” this interactionist perspective requires not only a consideration
 Heard on Campus 77

of personal attributes (i.e., personality and dispositional characteris-

tics), but also consideration of situation, including social and cultural
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 21:28 06 November 2014

context (also see Moghaddam, 2004, for a detailed discussion of the cul-
tural preconditions for terrorism). This perspective is evident in several
exemplary models of terrorist development, identity, and behavior. For
example, Moghaddam (2005) posits a “staircase model” of terrorism
that has clear implications for both understanding and predicting who
becomes a terrorist. In this model, terrorism is viewed as a sequential
progression from lower floors to higher floors that occurs on an increas-
ingly narrow staircase. Each floor is characterized by unique psycho-
logical processes and progressive restrictions in response options, such
that the final outcome is “destruction of others, or oneself, or both”
(Moghaddam 2005, 161; also see Waller 2002 for a discussion of the
systematic and sequential progression toward intergroup violence).

WHAT MOTIVATES TERRORISM?

Question: Why do terrorists want to kill innocent people?

Answer: Because they’re evil.

Reductionist statements and simplifications often characterize the

public dialogue about the roots and motivation of terrorism. While it
may be psychologically comforting to know that there are “good” and
“evil” people in the world (Staub 1989), this level of analysis suggests
that the only acceptable response to terrorism is to eliminate those evil
people who commit it as well as their supporters. The related concept of
“hate” has emerged as important in understanding intergroup violence
and terrorism (Sternberg 2003, 2005). The kind of hate that may be op-
erating in the context of terrorism is neither blind nor disorganized.
Rather, it is intense, focused, and often highly organized.
From a psychological perspective, it is important to note that there is
little evidence to suggest that terrorists have abnormally high levels of
mental illness, or that they are psychopaths (Reich 1998). What does
emerge, however, is that terrorists are rational actors with purpose, intent,
high levels of commitment, and deeply held convictions (Crenshaw
1998; Post 1998). And while external factors such as global poverty, in-
equalities in health care, education, or even access to the basic require-
ments of food, water, and shelter have been implicated as necessary
causal factors of terrorism, these are not sufficient (also see Marsella
 78 JOURNAL OF SECURITY EDUCATION

2004; Moghaddam 2004). Rather, these are part (albeit a significant part)
of the background conditions in which recruiting, indoctrinating, and
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 21:28 06 November 2014

motivating individuals toward terrorism becomes increasingly likely

(Lemieux and Pratto 2003; Staub 2003). The issue of identity (social, cul-
tural, religious, political, etc.), especially when a groups’ identity is per-
ceived to be threatened is at the heart of understanding motivations for
terrorism.
Research in the formation and maintenance of social identities has
consistently shown that when people belong to a group, they act in ways
that favor their ingroup. Acting in ways that advantage the ingroup is
characteristic of groups that are formed on the basis of even the most
trivial criteria (Tajfel and Turner 1986). As group identity becomes in-
creasingly salient, intergroup competition has been shown to increase
both stereotypes and harm of outgroups (Sherif 1966). Generally, rigid
categorical thinking (i.e., “us versus them”) sets a necessary precondi-
tion for both intergroup violence and terrorism (Post 1998; Staub 2005).
Whether it is used to justify acts of violence, to explain group differ-
ences, or even in the context of policy decisions, social categorizations
that privilege one group identity over another are a frequent correlate of
intergroup violence and terrorism (Hewstone and Cairnes 2003; Sidanius
and Pratto 1999). In fact, categorical thinking and the differentiation of
“us versus them” has been a central feature of many instances of extreme
intergroup violence, including the genocides in Turkey, Germany, Cam-
bodia, and Rwanda (Power 2002; Staub 1989).
When people become aware of what others have in relation to them-
selves, in terms of both material resources and social status, and per-
ceive the differences to be meaningful and potentially unjust, they feel
deprived of something that is rightfully theirs. This feeling of relative
deprivation (e.g., Runciman 1966) is characterized by resentment and
frustration, and is especially poignant when it occurs as the fortune of
one’s ingroup seems to be declining, while the fortunes of others are im-
proving. Pratto and Lemieux (2006a) suggest that a heightened experi-
ence of relative deprivation is likely during economic downturns, as a
response to both military defeats and terrorist attacks, and may result
in increases in prejudice and scapegoating (also see Staub 1989, 2003;
Waller 2002). Labeling broad categories of people as appropriate targets
is a catalyst for continued intergroup conflict.
Taken together, a more in-depth analysis of exactly how and when
such precursors motivate terrorism will help to better focus on preventive
efforts. An interdisciplinary collaboration is required, which enables
 Heard on Campus 79

(1) understanding social, cultural, and political factors central to such an

analysis, and (2) reliable estimations of causal relationships.
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 21:28 06 November 2014

RESPONSES TO TERRORISM

Following the September 11, 2001 attacks Pratto et al. (2003) exam-
ined a specific range of emotional responses, including American and
Lebanese participants’ hopes and fears for the future. Distinct factors
were identified for both hopes and fears. Among the predominant fears
following the September 11, attacks were fears of violence and fears
about the loss of U.S. dominance, especially among participants who
were higher on authoritarianism. We took this as an indicator that both
social identity and group position are of critical importance in determin-
ing the response to traumatic events such as terrorism.
Terror management theory (Greenberg et al. 1990) has been used to
interpret and understand responses to the September 11, 2001 attacks
(Pyszczynski, Greenberg, and Solomon 2003). Terrorist attacks represent
an immediate and salient threat to culture and meaning. Such attacks are
intended to (and often do) lead to a profound increase in mortality sa-
lience. As a result of the 9/11 attacks, there was a well-documented and
robust tendency for Americans to engage in patriotic displays, to assert
national greatness and predominance, and to support charismatic leaders
who were able to reaffirm their worldview. Thus, a common and power-
ful response to terrorist attacks is characterized by efforts to re-establish
one’s identity in order to restore the sense of order and worldview that
was threatened.
Another range of potential responses to terrorist attacks includes
Hincreases in empathy for victims of violence, as well as scapegoating
of outgroup members who are perceived to be responsible. Pratto and
Lemieux (2006a) found that reminding participants of harm to their
ingroup (the 9/11 attacks against Americans) increased expressions of
empathy for ingroup members, while also increasing prejudice against
groups blamed for the harm (Arabs). We found that expressions of
empathy did not result in reduction of prejudice. Rather, the salience of
in group national identity may have actually contributed to higher lev-
els of anti-Arab prejudice. Importantly, heightened prejudice facilitates
scapegoating and victimization (e.g., Waller 2002).
Related research has shown that attitudes favoring military response
tend to escalate following terrorist attacks, such that repeated terrorist
attacks have been found to provoke subsequent attacks characterized by
 80 JOURNAL OF SECURITY EDUCATION

a disproportionate amount of force and destructive power (Bourne,

Healy, and Beer 2003). This finding is consistent with Social Domi-
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 21:28 06 November 2014

nance Theory in that violence committed by members of subordinate

groups is labeled as illegitimate, and is often met with a disproportion-
ate, if not overwhelming, use of force in response (Sidanius and Pratto
1999).

REDUCING THE THREAT OF TERRORISM

IN THE FUTURE

Of prime importance in the reduction of future terrorism are efforts

to address global poverty on a meaningful and sustainable level. As
Lemieux and Pratto (2003) noted, poverty has at least as much to do with
human social relationships as it does with scarcity of resources. In fact,
U.S. President Bush has clearly indicated that one of the key compo-
nents of the “war on terror” is the elimination of poverty (Ross 2002, 3).
Another important factor in efforts to reduce terrorism in the future,
which is clearly related to global poverty, is the broader issue of public
health. In fact, in recent years the issue of health as a fundamental hu-
man right has been addressed in the context of structural violence (see
Farmer 2005 for a detailed discussion).
Prejudice reduction between groups will also be a critical feature of
successful efforts to reduce the threat of future terrorism, as well as ef-
forts toward reconciliation of past violence. A promising model that can
be applied in the realm of prejudice reduction is the common ingroup
identity model (Gaertner, Dovidio, and Bachman 1996). Developing a
lasting and meaningful reduction in prejudice requires significant change
in intergroup boundaries. Issues of international interdependence such
as global health (Hertzman 2001; Farmer 2005) and the environment
(Oskamp 2000) can be recast to foster interdependence and redefinition
of group identities.
As was originally specified in realistic group conflict theory (Sherif
1966), recognition of a superordinate goal provides groups with a basis
for cooperation. The fundamental nature of a shared goal allows group
members to share the benefits of success, which fosters both positive in-
tergroup attitudes and positive interdependence. The act of working to-
ward a superordinate goal has the potential to re-define ingroups and
outgroups, which is a crucial step in reduction of categorical “us versus
them” thinking.
 Heard on Campus 81

In the near-term, it is important to understand the dynamics of terror

networks in order to disrupt them, and to limit the effectiveness of their
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 21:28 06 November 2014

recruiting practices. It is also of increasing importance to understand the

perceptions of policies and practices that are leveraged throughout the
recruiting and indoctrination period to minimize the basis of popular
and material support. By understanding how actions and policies (polit-
ical, military, trade, etc.) are interpreted, we will be better positioned to
anticipate the conditions where terrorist groups will emerge and benefit
from a level of local support that makes them viable.

THE INTERDISCIPLINARY FUTURE:

IDENTIFYING CAUSAL FACTORS
AND APPLYING SOLUTIONS

There are many disciplines and perspectives that inform the greater
understanding of the causes, consequences, and potential solutions of
the insidious problem of terrorism. However, it is unlikely that any one
scholarly discipline is singularly capable of addressing the scope of this
problem. Multiple perspectives afford the implementation of different
research methodologies, theoretical perspectives, and applications that
leverage their respective strengths. A truly interdisciplinary approach
integrates theory, research, and application to address the advent of, and
responses to, terrorism. It affords a better understanding of the relation-
ships between policies, attitudes, emotions, and behaviors. It will also al-
low us to simultaneously consider the structural and political features of a
given sociocultural context. Ultimately, an interdisciplinary perspective
that incorporates social psychological perspectives may provide both the
tools and methodologies to better understand and predict terrorist
behavior.

REFERENCES
Bourne, L. E., A. F. Healy, and F. A. Beer. 2003. Military conflict and terrorism:
General psychology informs international relations. Review of General Psychology
7:189-202.
Crenshaw, M. 1998. “The logic of terrorism: Terrorist behavior as a product of strate-
gic choice.” In W. Reich (ed.) Origins of terrorism: Psychologies, ideologies, theol-
ogies, states of mind. 7-24. Washington: Woodrow Wilson Center Press.
Farmer, P. 2005. Pathologies of power: Health, human rights, and the new war on the
poor. Berkeley: University of California Press.
 82 JOURNAL OF SECURITY EDUCATION

Gaertner, S. L., J. F. Dovidio, and B.A. Bachman. 1996. Revisiting the contact hypoth-
esis: The induction of a common ingroup identity. International Journal of Inter-
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 21:28 06 November 2014

cultural Relations 20:271-209.

Greenberg, J., T. Pyszczynski, S. Solomon, A. Rosenblatt, M. Beeder, S. Kirkland, and
D. Lyon. 1990. Evidence for terror management theory: II. The effects of morality
salience reactions to those who implicitly or explicit threat or support the cultural
world view. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 58:308-318.
Hertzman, C. 2001. Health and human society. American Scientist 89:538-545.
Hewstone, M. and E. Cairns. 2001. “Social psychology and intergroup conflict.” In
D. Chirot and M. Seligman (eds.) Ethnopolitical warfare: Causes, consequences,
and possible Solutions. 319-342. Washington: American Psychological Associa-
tion.
Lemieux, A. F. and F. Pratto. 2002. Global poverty: The impact of prejudice, power,
and social dominance. Paper presented at the convention of the Society for the
Psychological Study of Social Issues. Toronto, Canada.
Lemieux, A. F. and F. Pratto. 2003. “Poverty and prejudice.” In S. Carr and T. Sloan
(eds.) Poverty and psychology: Emergent critical practice. 147-162. New York:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Marsella, A. 2004. “Reflections on international terrorism: Issues, concepts, and direc-
tions.” In F. Moghaddam and A. Marsella (eds.) Understanding terrorism: Psy-
chosocial roots, consequences, and interventions. 11-47. Washington: American
Psychological Association.
Moghaddam, F. 2004. “Cultural preconditions for potential terrorist groups: Terrorism
and societal change.” In F. Moghaddam and A. Marsella (eds.) Understanding
terrorism: Psychosocial roots, consequences, and interventions. 103-120. Wash-
ington: American Psychological Association.
Moghaddam, F. 2005. The staircase to terrorism: A psychological exploration. Ameri-
can Psychologist . 60:161-169.
Oskamp, S. 2000. Psychological contributions to achieving an ecologically sustainable
future for humanity. Journal of Social Issues 56:373-390.
Post, J. M. 1998. “Terrorist psycho-logic: Terrorist behavior as a product of psycholog-
ical forces.” In W. Reich (ed.) Origins of terrorism: Psychologies, ideologies, theol-
ogies, states of mind. 25-41. Washington: Woodrow Wilson Center Press.
Power, S. 2002. A problem from hell: America and the age of genocide. New York:
Perennial.
Pratto, F. and A. F. Lemieux. 2006a. Targeted scapegoating: Americans’ prejudice and
empathy after September 11, 2001. Working Paper, University of Connecticut,
Storrs.
Pratto, F. and A. F. Lemieux. 2006b. Intergroup emotions as indicators of changes in
group positions. Working Paper, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
Pratto, F., A. F. Lemieux, D. E. Glasford, and P. J. Henry. 2003. American and Leba-
nese college students’ responses to the events of September 11, 2001: The relation
of hopes and fears to the psychology of group positions. Psicologíca Politíca
27:13-35.
Pratto, F., P. J. Henry, S. Levin, A. F. Lemieux, et al. 2002. Political and emotional
reactions to the events of September 11th among Americans and Lebanese. Paper
 Heard on Campus 83

presented at the convention of the Society for the Psychological Study of Social
Issues. Toronto, Canada.
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 21:28 06 November 2014

Pyszczynski, T., S. Solomon, and J. Greenberg. 2003. In the wake of 9/11: The psy-
chology of terror. Washington: American Psychological Association.
Reich, W. 1998. “Understanding terrorist behavior: The limits and opportunities of psy-
chological inquiry.” In W. Reich (ed.) Origins of terrorism: Psychologies, ideologies,
theologies, states of mind. 261-279. Washington: Woodrow Wilson Center Press.
Ross, S. “Bush urges tying aid to reform: Calls for global poverty fight to prevent ter-
rorism.” Boston Herald, March 23, 2002, 3.
Runciman, W. G. 1966. Relative deprivation and social justice: A study of attitudes to
social inequality in twentieth-century England. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Sherif, M. 1966. In common predicament: Social psychology of intergroup conflict and
cooperation. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Sidanius, J., and F. Pratto. 1999. Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social
hierarchy and oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Staub, E. 1989. The roots of evil: The origins of genocide and other group violence.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Staub, E. 2003. The psychology of good and evil: Why children, adults, and groups
help and harm others. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Staub, E. 2005. “The origins and evolution of hate, with notes on prevention.” In
R. Sternberg (ed.) The psychology of hate. 51-66. Washington: American Psycho-
logical Association.
Sternberg, R. 2003. A duplex theory of hate: Development and application to terror-
ism, massacres, and genocide. Review of General Psychology 7:299-328.
Sternberg, R. 2005. “Understanding and combating hate.” In R. Sternberg (ed.) The
psychology of hate. 37-50. Washington: American Psychological Association.
Tajfel, H. and J. Turner. 1986. “The social identity theory of intergroup behavior.” In S.
Worchel and W.G. Austin (eds.) Psychology of intergroup relations. 7-24. Chicago:
Nelson Hall.
Waller, J. 2002. Becoming evil: How ordinary people commit genocide and mass
killing. New York: Oxford University Press.

Received: 12/31/05
Revised: 01/21/06
Accepted: 01/24/06

doi:10.1300/J460v01n04_07