What Are the Psychological Explanations for Why People Commit Terrorist Acts and Up to What Extent Do They Explain These People’s Behaviour.

What atomic number 18 the mental explanations for why plenty indue terrorist acts and up to what extent do they develop these peoples demeanor. Miller (2006) states that the word terrorism derives from the Latin word terrere which means to frighten. Merari and Friedman (see Victoroff 2005, p. 3) claim that terrorism existed even before recorded history. This is echoed by Millers (2006) claim that terrorism is as obsolete as civilization and has existed since people discovered that they could influence the majority by targeting a few people. Schmid (see Victoroff 2005 p. ) has serene 109 definitions of terrorism and this suggests that it is a actually broad topic and extremely hard to define. Two examples of relatively upstart acts of terrorism are the Oklahoma City bombings in 1995 and the terrorist attacks upon the United States in 2001. This undertake examines some of the psychological explanations as to why people commit such(prenominal) acts of terror and attempts to i ntegrate some of these explanations in cast to achieve a greater understanding. One possible explanation of why people commit terrorist acts mickle be seen in the morbid guess of terrorism.Bongar at el. (2007) claim that it is a common suggestion that terrorists moldiness be insane or psychopathologcal this is the basis of the psychopathological theory of terrorism. However Rasch (see Victoroff 2005 p. 12) looked at 11 terrorist suspects and in like manner looked at a Federal Police study of 40 people wanted as terrorists and anchor nothing to suggest that any of them were mentally ill. Bongar et al (2007) observed that interviews with terrorists hardly ever find any dis run listed in the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders.This is supported by the hammer of the criminologist Franco Ferracuti (1982) who verbalize that although terrorist groups are sometimes led by insane souls, and a few terrorist acts maybe committed by insane individuals, ,most people who commit terrorist acts hardly ever meet psychiatric criteria for insanity. Victoroff (2005) makes the point that very particular research supporting the psychopathological model uses comprehensive psychiatric examination. Whilst the psychopathological model may relieve the behaviour of a few people who commit terrorist acts it does not explain the behaviour of most people who commit terrorist acts.Psychoanalysis is based on the idea that we are largely driven by unconscious(p) motives and impulses (Victoroff 2005 Borum 2004). It has been used to try and explain the behaviour of people who commit terrorist acts and has many variants only when two notions front to underpin all of them the first is that people who commit terrorist acts are motivated by a repugnance towards their parents and that these motives are mainly unconscious, the second is that terrorism is the result of cruelty and maltreatment in childishness (Borum 2004).A theory which uses the psychoanalytical appr oach is the Narcissism theory. John Crayton and Richard Pearlstein (see Victoroff 2005, p. 23) have used Kohuts self psychological science to explain the process that drives young people to commit terrorist acts. Heniz Kohuts (see Victoroff 2005, p. 23) concept of self psychology is a variation of Freuds ego psychology. Kohut (see Victoroff 2005, p. 23) claims that infants have certain needs which need to be met in order for their caring responses to develop normally and that if they do not receive maternal empathy it costs their self image.Kohut (see Victoroff 2005, p. 23) called this damage egotistical damage and said that it prevents the development of adult morality and identity. In his work Crayton (see Victoroff 2005. p. 23) suggests that political bewilder such as humiliation of subordination might rekindle narcissistic injury caused in childhood in adults. He suggested that this may result in an exalted sense of self or the rejection of iodines individual identity in or der to unite with someone or something which represents omnipotence (see Victoroff 2005, p. 23 Borum 2004, p. 19).Crayton suggested (see Victoroff 2005, p. 23) that an apotheosis of self is the origin for leaders of terrorist groups/activities and that the rejection of ones individual identity is the origin of the followers of such leaders. Akhtar (see Borum 2004 p. 19) based his work on the Narcissism theory and claimed that people who commit terrorist acts are deeply traumatised as children, and often suffer abuse and humiliation. According to Akhtar (see Borum 2004, p. 19) this leaves them feeling an enormous amount of fear and exposure. Crayton (see Victoroff 2005 p. 3) claims that this fear and vulnerability become intolerable to the extent that it is expressed through and through narcissistic rage narcissistic rage is in truth rage against the damaged self but is projected onto some other targets as if they were the reason for the intolerable feelings. The work of both Hub bard and el Surraj (see Victoroff 2005 p. 24) supports the narcissistic theory they found that terrorists are usually not aggressive psychopaths but are often timid, emotionally damaged young people who might have suffered parental rejection and therefrom not developed their own adult identities fully.They are often looking for meaning and relationships. The narcissism theory tries to explain why people commit terrorist acts in terms of an identity deficit/narcissistic injury which is expressed through narcissistic rage. Pearlstein (see Borum 2004 p. 19) identifies the narcissism theory as the most comprehensive theory of the individual logic of those who commit terrorist acts. However Victoroff (2005) claims that although the ideas within the narcissism theory are plausible there is very little scientific evidence supporting the theory.Banduras social tuition theory suggests that violence occurs through observation and imitation of behaviour (see Victoroff 2005, p. 18). Whether o r not aggressive behaviour is imitated depends on what consequences of the behaviour are observed when other people carry out the behaviour (see Borum 2004, p. 13). Learning through observation of other peoples actions and through the consequences of their actions is called vicarious learning (see Borum 2004, p. 13).Oots and Wiegele (1985) make the point that if aggression can be viewed as a learned behaviour, and so terrorism, which is a type of aggressive behaviour, can also be viewed as a learned behaviour. Victoroff (2005) gives an example of how the social learning theory might explain the behaviour of people who commit terrorist acts he says that adolescents who live in areas of political mesh may witness terrorist behaviours and seek to imitate them or that they may see the way that people in their culture react to such terrorist behaviours and learn through these.The latter is an example of vicarious learning if certain behaviours get a positive reaction then people are mo re in all probability to imitate them. Crenshaw (see Victoroff 2005, p. 18) gives the example of the martyr posters which are displayed in the Shia regions of Lebanon and Palestinian refugee camps this example illustrates how vicarious learning might explain the behaviour of people who commit terrorist acts. dogmatic reactions to terrorist behaviours from the people of a culture may influence others in that culture to commit terrorist acts. The social learning theory fails to explain why only a minority of people who witness terrorist behaviours and see these behaviours universe glorified by their culture become people who commit terrorist acts (Victoroff, 2005). The behaviours of people who commit terrorist acts can be explained to a certain extent by the pathological model, the narcissism model and the social learning theory.The pathological model explains their behaviour in terms of psychopathology, the narcissism model explains their behaviour in terms of narcissistic injury a nd an exaltation of self or rejection of individual identity, the social learning theory explains their behaviour in terms of observation, imitation and vicarious learning. None of the models fully succeed in explaining why only a minority of people who suffer from psychopathology, narcissistic personality traits or live in areas of political conflict become people who commit terrorist acts.The pathological model, the narcissism model, and the social learning theory may generate a better explanation of why people commit terrorist acts if they are combined For example if someone is pathologically insane, has had a distressful childhood and is also surrounded by political conflict, it seems more likely that they may commit terrorists acts. On the other hand if someone is pathologically insane, has had a relatively lasting childhood, and isnt surrounded by political conflict, it seems less likely that they may commit terrorist acts.The three explanations for the behaviour of people w ho commit terrorist acts, which are discussed in this essay are not the only psychological explanations available. on that point are also cognitive and biological explanations for such behaviour which if integrated with the three explanations discussed in this essay would provide an even greater understanding of why people commit terrorist acts. References Bongar, B. M. , et al. , 2007. psychological science of terrorism. USA Oxford University Press. Borum, R. , 2004. Psychology of terrorism. Tampa Univeristy of South Florida. Ferracuti, F. , 1982.Asociopsychiatric interpretation of terrorism. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 463, 29-40. Miller, L. , 2006. The Terrorist Mind I. A psychological and Political Analysis. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 50 (2), 121-138. Oots, K. L. , and Wiegele, T. C. , 1985. Terrorist and Victim Psychiatric and Physiological Approaches. terrorism An International Journal, 8(1), 1-32 . Victoroff, J. , 2005. The Mind of the Terrorsit A Review and Critique of Psychological Approaches. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 49(1), 3-42.