the-BA : The psychology of terrorism

Terrorism in London:the authorities react

Andrew Silke asks whether government policy will win hearts and minds

The UK has the most extensive anti-terrorism laws of any European country. In the light of psychological research, do they make sense?

UK law

In the past six years alone, the UK has had no fewer than four major pieces of legislation in this area. The most recent, the Terrorism Act 2006, incorporates measures to stop the encouragement of terrorism, preparation of terrorist acts and terrorist training. In particular, it criminalizes the ‘glorification’ of terrorism.
This controversial measure is intended to allow the police to act against people who ‘praise or celebrate’ terrorism in a way that makes people think they should emulate such attacks. It also greatly increases the time suspects can be held without charge, from the previous maximum limit of 14 days to 28 days.
A major stated aim of the Terrorism Act 2006 is to disrupt the recruitment of potential terrorists. Much of the act is not aimed at terrorists themselves, but instead at people who previously have existed on the fringes of extremist movements. The Terrorism Act 2006 implicitly recognizes that social context plays a vital role in terrorism.

Recruitment and radicalisation

Psychological research suggests that becoming a terrorist is best seen as a gradual process. Research by Marc Sageman, for example, has highlighted that a very large proportion of Al-Qaeda recruits became radicalised as a group of friends, and not as isolated individuals.1 Over time – in most cases at least a few years – the group gradually became increasingly extreme in their political views and more isolated from the mainstream society around them. Terrorism was not seen as acceptable at the beginning but slowly became a justifiable option as time passed. As these groups gradually radicalised, they often sought out the sermons of radical preachers and were exposed to extreme propaganda videos.
The Terrorism Act 2006 targets those who provide such sermons or material and in that sense the legislation can appear to have some justification. However, there are problems.
One, there is a risk of overestimating the importance of UK-based preachers like Abu Hamza. Marc Sageman’s research has highlighted that jihadis generally become radicalised relatively independently of known extremists.
Second, ‘glorification’ is not the only – or indeed even the most important – element in radicalisation. There are several other factors that play vital roles. One driving issue is that radicals believe that their identity is under threat. Any given society will possess some minorities and other disaffected groups who rightly or wrongly perceive that the world is treating them harshly. It is from such pools that individual terrorists emerge.
Radicals who join movements such as Al-Qaeda believe that Muslims are under threat in a variety of regions. Events in Kashmir, Chechnya, Bosnia, Israel/Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq, all provide evidence to support such a view.
Within the UK, Muslim populations experience higher levels of unemployment, lower average incomes, lower educational achievement, and less political representation than any other major religious grouping. The disadvantages faced by British Muslims in this regard are considerably worse than those experienced by Catholics in Northern Ireland in the 1960s (discrimination which eventually helped fuel the terrorism of the Troubles).

From disaffection to violence

Psychological research also highlights that the move from the disaffected to violent extremist is usually facilitated by exposure to a catalyst event (or series of such events). Normally, this is an act of extreme physical violence committed by the police or security forces or other rival group against the individual, family, friends, or simply anyone they identify strongly with.
We know for example, that most Palestinian suicide bombers have had at least one relative or close friend who has been killed, maimed or abused at the hands of enemies. Similarly, research on Chechnyan suicide bombers has found that almost all have had one close relative killed by the Russian security forces.
Research highlights that direct personal experience of violence is not necessary to facilitate joining. Vicarious exposure through television can be enough, if the images are dramatic and persistent enough. For some Muslims, scenes of violence in Iraq, Israel and elsewhere can provide a catalyst motive.
Ultimately, the combination of a sense of belonging to a beleaguered group combined with the experience of an act (or acts) of extreme violence against either oneself or significant others, is the impetus for some to engage in terrorism.

Legislation ineffective

The Terrorism Act 2006 does nothing to tackle any of these issues, and in the end we should have very modest expectations from any piece of anti-terrorism legislation. Clive Walker, the UK’s leading expert on anti-terror law, has concluded that anti-terrorism legislation has rarely proved decisive in fighting terrorism.
For the most part, existing legislation already criminalizes terrorism-related activities. This was clearly illustrated in the case against radical cleric Abu Hamza who was found guilty on 11 separate offences brought under existing criminal legislation. The successful prosecution of Hamza on so many charges of course raises questions as to the need for much of the Terrorism Act 2006.

Public opinion

However, it is misleading to judge counter-terrorism legislation and policy purely in terms of the effects on the terrorist groups and their supporters. Public opinion has always been a major factor.
In polls and surveys carried out in the aftermath of terrorist attacks, a clear majority consistently approve the introduction of hard-line measures to tackle the terrorists.
In the United States, the few occasions where the US has responded aggressively to terrorism have all been met with warm and overwhelming domestic approval. Though condemned internationally, the American bombing of Libya in 1986 was approved by 77 percent of US citizens polled. The two strikes authorised by the Clinton administration, first against Iraq in 1993 and then against alleged al-Qaeda in 1998, had approval ratings of 66 and 77 percent respectively.
Ultimately, for any government which wishes to make a widely popular response to terrorist violence (at least among its own domestic population), introducing tough, harsh measures and policies are by far the most obvious choice. Much of the recent legislation introduced in the UK may be ineffective in general, but it does succeed in meeting a powerful public demand for a tough stance.

No way out

A remaining critical concern is that the current legislation is very poor in offering terrorists and their supporters a way out of extremism. There is no system to encourage terrorists to leave. Instead everything is focused on their capture and severe punishment.
In contrast, several countries have used legislation to facilitate pathways out of terrorism. Italy introduced highly successful Penititi laws in the early 1980s, which provided reduced prison sentences and early release for reformed terrorists. These laws played a major role in defeating terrorism in that country. States such as Yemen, Egypt and Singapore are now experimenting with similar approaches to deal with jihadi extremists (and apparently with considerable success).
Psychology has long known that it is much easier to change behaviour with rewards than with punishment. The UK though shows no sign of introducing a carrot to accompany the many sticks in its legislative approach, and this omission may yet prove costly.

Reference
1. Marc Sageman (2004), Understanding Terror Networks. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press

Dr Andrew Silke has a background in forensic psychology and is currently the Field Leader for Criminology at the University of East London
A.Silke@uel.ac.uk

@ a glance…

The Terrorism Act 2006 criminalizes the ‘glorification’ of terrorism

Its targeting of people who provide extreme propaganda seems justified given the way terrorists are recruited

Radicals believe that their identity is under threat, and prohibiting the glorification of terrorism will not affect this

Much of the recent legislation introduced in the UK may be ineffective in general, but it does meet a powerful public demand for a tough stance

It is much easier to change behaviour with rewards than with punishment, but current legislation introduces no carrots to accompany its many sticks

	Home

	News

	Reports and Publications

	Science & Public Affairs

	SPA Archive

	June 2006

	SPATalk

	Science and Peace in Antarctica

	Twin tracks to tackle climate challenge

	Budget throws sensitivities into relief

	News in Brief

	Morality,theology and action on climate change

	What are we going to do about the decline in chemistry students?

	The psychology of terrorism

	Science meets policy

	Where did texting come from?

	The self-sorting tendency

	Physics in the City

	Young people and gambling problems

	Deaf people and linguistic research

	Food labelling in Europe - We need information for the majority

	Food labelling in Europe - We want nutrition labelling

	Food labelling in Europe - It's a mess

	Mobile phones and children - Voluntary Code

	Mobile phones and children - Children face risks

	Mobile phones and children-UK code of practice

	And then there was one

	Joys and duties of a scientist

	Scientists in the pay of industry

	Creationism reviving; science recruitment declining

	All hail the new Science Supremo