Political Psychology – Lecture 5 [UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM]

Radicalization refers to the action or process of making someone more radical (i.e. extreme) in their political or religious beliefs. It includes a growing preparedness to strive for and support far-reaching changes in society. People are becoming increasingly motivated to use violent means against members of an out-group or symbolic targets to achieve political goals. It is best understood as a process driven by a combination of personality and contextual factors.

All terrorists have gone through a process of radicalization. However, not all who radicalize will become terrorists. Terrorism refers to deliberate and systematic violence performed by small numbers of people. The purpose is to intimidate the watching audience. It is generally a resistance to authority, although it can be difficult to distinguish terrorists and guerrilla fighters. One person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter. Communal violence refers to spontaneous and sporadic violence and requires mass participation.

It is not possible to predict who will become a terrorist based on demographic information. However, there are some demographic characteristics. Most terrorists are young men. They have both high and low education, depending on the cohort and the position in the group. Female terrorism is growing.

Radicalization can be studied using both qualitative and quantitative methods. It makes use of experimental studies (1), surveys (2), interviews (3), case studies (4), computer simulations (5) and participatory observation (6). A multi-method approach and data triangulation are the most viable ways of studying radicalization.

The psychopathological theories of terrorism state that terrorists suffer from psychopathology or are psychopaths. However, there is insufficient evidence for this hypothesis. In addition to this, terrorism requires functioning in groups and can be seen as pro-social in some cases.

The staircase theory of terrorism states that people become increasingly radical as they ‘climb’ the staircase of terrorism. There are several floors in this model:

1. Ground floor
   This floor includes the psychological interpretation of material conditions.
2. First floor
   This floor includes the perceived options to fight unfairness.
3. Second floor
   This floor includes a displacement of aggression.
4. Third floor
   This floor includes moral engagement.
5. Fourth floor
   This floor includes categorical thinking (i.e. us vs. them).
6. Fifth floor
   This floor includes the terrorist act.

The stage theory of terrorism states that people become increasingly radical and that there are several steps to take to terrorism. This model is focused on religiously motivated terrorism. The steps are pre-radicalization (1), self-identification (2), indoctrination (3) and jihadization (4).

It is possible that people have a shield of resilience, preventing them from radicalizing. This shield of resilience includes protective factors. After radicalizing, the shield of resilience flips and the risk factors that make it more likely that someone radicalizes become protective factors that make it less likely that someone de-radicalizes. People go through the stages of sensitivity (1), group membership (2) and action (3).

People are more likely to take up arms when their need for protection from existential fear is heightened and they are confronted with an outgroup that challenges core aspects of their cultural worldview. This means that heightened existential fear makes terrorist action more likely.

The terror management theory states that the awareness of the inevitability and potential finality of death creates potential for existential terror. This is controlled by maintaining faith in an internalized cultural worldview (1) and obtaining self-esteem by living up to the standards of that worldview (2). The existence of people with other worldviews threaten this cultural worldview and this reduces its anxiety-buffering effectiveness. After an increased mortality salience, terrorism becomes more likely because eliminating another worldview increases one’s worldview’s anxiety-buffering effectiveness.

Mortality salience leads people to conform more closely to the norms of their culture, punish violators of the norm more severely and react more negatively toward those with conflicting world views. Mortality salience increases worldview defence.

Alienation from the mainstream (1), feelings of humiliation (2), desire to avenge the past (3) and a desire to restore order morality to a worldview (4) are important factors in support for terrorist violence. Mortality salience does not make liberals more likely to endorse military action. Reminders of mortality do not amplify tendencies that exist under more neutral conditions. It leads people to gravitate toward conceptions of reality that provide security. Pre-existing attitudes play an important role in determining how people will protect themselves from existential concerns.

The rock type worldview refers to a worldview that is characterized by an emphasis on the absolutes of good and evil. The primary negative emotion in response to worldview threats is anger. The hard place worldview refers to a worldview characterized by more flexibility and less security. It emphasises the complexity of right and wrong and the primary negative emotion in response to worldview threats is anxiety.

Leaders who promote a positive self-image through framing one’s group as undertaking a righteous mission can be increasingly attractive when mortality salience is heightened.

Root factors refer to underlying psychological factors of radicalization. Distal root factors include uncertainty (1), perceived injustice (2) and perceived group threat (3). These root factors lead to proximal root factors, which include perceived illegitimacy of authorities (1), in-group superiority (2), distance to the outgroup (3) and social isolation (4). The root factors, in turn, lead to approving violence by others and greater own intentions to use ideology-based violence.

Trigger factors refer to concrete events that initiate further radicalization (e.g. 9/11). The factors can be present at micro-, meso- and macro level. Root factors and trigger factors can interact. People who radicalize generally have four basic needs:

1. Need for sensation
   The need for sensation is an important need for radicalization. Thrill-seeking is an important motivation to join right-wing extremism and a risk-seeking personality may be relevant for radicalization. Furthermore, the possibility of marrying a warrior is an important factor for young women.
2. Need for identity
   The need for identity is an important need for radicalization. Radicalized groups isolate members from family and friends. Furthermore, social exclusion can lead to aggression, depression, anxiety and fear, heightening the need for identity.
3. Need for justice
   The need for justice is an important need for radicalization. Terrorists perceive an absence of choice. Extreme forms of non-normative collective action are more likely in cases of low efficacy.
4. Need for significance
   The need for significance is an important need for radicalization. The experience of having a purpose in life drives individuals to radicalize. This often comes about due to a personal crisis. Significance loss may enhance this need.

Each need can individually explain the radicalization or multiple needs can influence radicalization.

Extremism may be driven by a desire to attain meaning in one’s life or a sense of personal significance. Circumstances that lower one’s sense of significance induce self-uncertainty which activates a need for closure. Extreme ideologies offer an unambiguous way of significance restoration. Any incident that induces humiliation, shame or dishonour could be a triggering event for radicalization as this leads to a loss of significance.

A need for closure refers to a desire for a quick and decisive answer and an aversion to ambiguity. Significance loss refers to feelings of being ashamed, humiliated or demeaned.

The significance quest theory (SQT) states that extreme behaviour is a mean of gaining or restoring significance. Humiliation of one’s social group is especially powerful for individuals who identify strongly with their social group. The theory emphasizes that extremism is context-dependent. Deviancy is difficult to maintain and to protect deviancy, individuals hold these views with considerable certainty.

The uncertainty-identity theory states that individuals are drawn to more extreme groups because identification provides a strong mechanism for uncertainty reduction. Extreme groups are adept at reducing uncertainty because they have a high internal homogeneity (1), clear defined group structures (2) and a common goal that has consensus (3).

In order to rehabilitate people from extremism, it is important to restore significance.