Political psychology aims to understand interdependent relationships between individuals and contexts that are influenced by beliefs, motivation, perception, cognition, information processing, learning strategies, socialization and attitude formation. Political psychological theory and approaches have been applied in many contexts such as: leadership role; domestic and foreign policy making; behavior in ethnic violence, war and genocide; group dynamics and conflict; racist behavior; voting attitudes and motivation; voting and the role of the media; nationalism; and political extremism. In essence political psychologists study the foundations, dynamics, and outcomes of political behavior using cognitive and social explanations.
History and early influences
France
Political
psychology originated from Western Europe, France, where it was closely
tied to the emergence of new disciplines and paradigms as well as to
the precise social and political context in various countries.
The discipline political psychology was formally introduced during the Franco-Prussian war and the socialist revolution, stirred by the rise of the Paris Commune (1871). The term "political psychology" was first introduced by the ethnologist Adolph Bastian in his book Man in History (1860). The philosopher Hippolyte Taine (1828–1893), a founder of the Ecole Libre de Sciences Politiques, applied Bastian's theories in his works The Origins of Contemporary France (1875–1893), to ideas on the founding and development of the Third Republic. The head of Ecole Libre de Sciences Politiques, Emile Boutmy (1835–1906), was a famous explorer of social, political and geographical concepts of national interactions. He contributed various works on political psychology such as English People; A study of their Political Psychology (1901) and The American People; Elements of Their Political Psychology (1902). The contributor of crowd theory Gustave Le Bon (1841–1931) suggested that crowd activity subdued will and polluted rational thought which resulted in uncontrollable impulses and emotions. He suggested in his works Psychology of Socialism (1896) and Political Psychology and Social Defense (1910) that in the uncontrollable state of a crowd people were more vulnerable to submission and leadership, and suggested that embracing nationalism would remedy this.
Italy
Meanwhile in Italy, the Risorgimento (1870) instigated various social reforms and voting rights. The large division in social class during this period led lawyer Gaetano Mosca (1858–1914) to publish his work, The Ruling Class: Elements of Political Science (1896), which theorized the presence of the ruling and the ruled classes of all societies. Vilfredo Pareto (1828–1923), inspired by Mosca's concepts, contributed The Rise and Fall of the Elites (1901) and The Socialist System (1902–1903) to the discipline of political psychology, theorizing on the role of class and social systems. His work The Mind and Society (1916) offers a sociology treatise.
Mosca and Pareto's texts on the Italian elite contributed to the
theories of Robert Michels (1875–1936). Michels was a German socialist
fascinated by the distinction between the largely lower class run
parliament in Germany and upper class run parliament in Italy. He wrote Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchic Tendencies of Modern Democracy (1911).
Austria
A large psychoanalytical influence was contributed to the discipline of political psychology by Sigmund Freud (1856–1939). His texts Totem and Taboo (1913) and Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego (1921) linked psychoanalysis with politics. Freud and Bullitt (1967) developed the first psychobiographical explanation to how the personality characteristics of U.S. President Woodrow Wilson affected his decision making during World War I. Wilhelm Reich
(1897–1957), inspired by the effects of World War II, was interested in
whether personality types varied according to epoch, culture and class.
He described the bidirectional effect of group, society and the
environment with personality. He combined Freudian and Marxist theories in his book The Mass Psychology of Fascism (1933). He also edited The Journal for Political Psychology and Sexual Economy (1934–1938) which was the first journal to present political psychology in the principal of western language.
Germany
In Germany, novice political alterations and fascist control during World War II spurred research into authoritarianism from Frankfurt school. Philosopher Herbert Marcuse (1898–1979) opened up issues concerning freedom and authority in his book, Reason and Revolution: Hegel and the Rise of Social Theory (1941), where he suggested groups compromise on individual rights. Theodor Adorno (1903–1969) also investigated authoritarian individuals and anti-Semitism. His report The Authoritarian Personality
(1950) attempts to determine the personality type susceptible to
following fascism and anti-democratic propaganda. Nazi movements during
World War II also spurred controversial psychologists such as Walther Poppelreuter (1932) to lecture and write about political psychology that identified with Hitler. The psychologist Eric Jaensch (1883–1940) contributed the racist book The Anti-type (1933).
United Kingdom
At the turn of the century, Oxford University and Cambridge University
introduced disciplinary political psychology courses such as "The
Sciences of the Man", along with the foundation of the Psychological
society (1901) and the Sociological society (1904). Oxford historian G. B. Grundy
(1861–1948) noted political psychology (1917) as a sub-discipline of
history. Motivated by social and political behavior during World War I,
he deemed a new branch of historical science, "The Psychology of Men
Acting in Masses". He referred to science to instrument the clarification of mistaken beliefs about intention. The intellectual Graham Wallas (1859–1932) implicated the significance of studying psychology in politics in Human Nature in Politics
(1908). Wallace emphasized the importance of enlightening politicians
and the public about the psychological processes in order to raise
awareness on exploitation while developing control over one's own
psychological intellect. He suggested in Great Society (1917) that recognition of such processes could help to build a more functional humanity.
United States
Across the Atlantic the first American to be considered a political psychologist was Harold Lasswell (1902–1978) whose research was also spurred by a sociological fascination of World War I. His work Propaganda Technique in the World War (1927) discussed the use of applying psychological theories in order to enhance propaganda technique.
Lasswell moved to Europe shortly after where he started to tie Freudian
and Adler personality theories to politics and published Psychopathology and Politics (1930). His major theories involved the motives of the politically active and the relation between propaganda and personality.
Another contributing factor to the development of Political
Psychology was the introduction of psychometrics and "The Measurement of
Attitude" by Thurstone and Chave
(1929). The methodological revolution in social science gave
quantitative grounds and therefore more credibility to Political
Psychology. Research into political preference during campaigns was
spurred by George Gallup
(1901–1984), who founded the "American Institute of Public Opinion".
The 1940s election in America drew a lot of attention in connection with
the start of World War II. Gallup, Roper and Crossley instigated
research into the chances of Roosevelt being re-elected. Lazarsfeld,
Berelson and Gaudet (1944) also conducted a famous panel study "The
People's Choice" on the 1940s election campaign. These studies drew
attention to the possibility of measuring political techniques using
psychological theories.
The entry of the US into World War II spiraled vast research into
fields such as war technique, propaganda, group moral, psycho-biography
and culture conflict to name a few, with the U.S. army and Navy
recruiting young psychologists. Thus the discipline quickly developed and gained international accreditation.
McGuire identifies three broad phases in the development of political psychology, these three phases are:
1.The era of personality studies in the 1940s and 1950s dominated by psychoanalysis
2.The era of political attitudes and voting behavior studies in the 1960s and 1970s characterized by the popularity of "rational man" assumptions
3.An era since the 1980s and 1990s, which has focused on political beliefs, information processing and decision making, and has dealt in particular with international politics.
Personality and politics
The study of personality
in political psychology focuses on the effects of leadership
personality on decision-making, and the consequences of mass personality
on leadership boundaries. Key personality approaches utilized in
political psychology are psychoanalytic theories, trait-based theories
and motive-based theories.
A psychoanalytical approach
Sigmund
Freud (1856–1939) made significant contributions to the study of
personality in political psychology through his theories on the
unconscious motives of behavior. Freud suggested that a leader's
behavior and decision making skill were largely determined by the
interaction in their personality of the id, ego and superego, and their control of the pleasure principle and reality principle.
The psychoanalytic approach has also been used extensively in
psychobiographies of political leaders. Psychobiographies draw
inferences from personal, social and political development, starting
from childhood, to understand behavior patterns that can be implemented
to predict decision-making motives and strategies.
A trait-based approach
Traits
are personality characteristics that show to be stable over time and in
different situations, creating predispositions to perceive and respond
in particular ways. Gordon Allport
(1897-1967) realized the study of traits introducing central,
secondary, cardinal and common traits. These four distinctions suggest
that people demonstrate traits to varying degrees, and further that
there is a difference between individual and common traits to be
recognized within a society. Hans Eysenck (1916-1997) contributed three major traits, currently however Costa and McCrae's
(1992) "Big Five" personality dimensions are the most recognized.
These include; neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, openness to
experience and conscientiousness. Theories in political psychology
induce that one's combination of these traits has implications for
leadership style and capacity. For example, individuals who score highly
on extroversion are demonstrated as having superior leadership skills.
The Myers-Briggs Type indicator (MBTI) is a personality assessment scale
commonly used in the study of political personality and for job
profiling.
A motive-based approach
In terms of political psychology motivation is viewed as goal-oriented behavior driven by a need for three things; power, affiliation intimacy, and achievement.
These categories were grouped by Winter (1996) from Murray's (1938)
twenty suggested common human goals. Need for power affects the style in
which a leader performs. Winter and Stewart (1977) suggested that
leaders high in power motivation and low in need of affiliation intimacy
motivation make better presidents. Affiliation-motivated leaders
alternatively tend to collaborate joint efforts in the absence of
threat. Lastly, achievement motivation has demonstrated to not
correspond with political success, especially if it is higher than power
motivation (Winter, 2002).
Motivation between a leader and those whom they are ruling needs to be
consistent with success. Motives have been shown to be correlated more
highly with situation and time since last goal-fulfillment, rather than
consistent traits. The Thematic Apperception Test
(TAT) is commonly used for assessing motives. However, in the case of
leadership assessment this test is more difficult to implement therefore
more applicable tests are often used such as content analysis of
speeches and interviews.
Frameworks for assessing personality
The authoritarian personality
The authoritarian personality is a syndrome theory that was developed by the researchers Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswick, Levinson and Sanford (1950) at The University of California. The American Jewish Committee subsidized research and publishing on the theory since it revolved around ideas developed from World War II events. Adorno
(1950) explained the authoritarian personality type from a
psychoanalytic point of view suggesting it to be a result of highly
controlled and conventional parenting. Adorno (1950) explained that
individuals with an authoritarian personality type had been stunted in
terms of developing an ability to control the sexual and aggressive id
impulses. This resulted in a fear of them and thus a development of
defense mechanisms to avoid confronting them.
Authoritarian personality types are persons described as swinging
between depending on yet resenting authority. The syndrome was theorized
to encompass nine characteristics; conventionalism, authoritarian
submission, authoritarian aggression, anti-intraception (an opposition
to subjective or imaginative tendencies), superstition and stereotypy,
power and toughness, destructiveness and cynicism, sex obsession, and
projectivity. The authoritarian personality type is suggested to be;
ethnocentric, ego-defensive, mentally rigid, conforming and
conventional, adverse to the out of the ordinary, and as having
conservative political views. The book The Authoritarian Personality (1950) introduces several scales based on different authoritarian personality types. These are; the F-scale
which measures from where and to what degree fascist attitudes develop,
the anti-Semitism scale, the ethnocentrism scale and the politico
economic conservatism scale. The F-scale however, is the only scale that
is expected to measure implicit authoritarian personality tendencies.
Bob Altemeyer (1996) deconstructed the authoritarian personality using trait analysis. He developed a Right-wing Authoritarianism
(RWA) scale based on the traits; authoritarian submission,
authoritarian aggression, and conventionalism. Altmeyer (1996) suggested
that those who score high on the F-scale have a low ability for
critical thinking and therefore are less able to contradict authority.
Altmeyer's theories also incorporate the psychodynamic point of view,
suggesting that authoritarian personality types were taught by their
parents to believe that the world was a dangerous place and thus their
impulses lead them to make impulsive, emotional and irrational
decisions. The beliefs and behavior of an authoritarian are suggested to
be easily manipulated by authority instead of being based on internal
values. Altmeyer also theorized that leaders with authoritarian
personality types were more susceptible to the fundamental attribution error.
There are many weaknesses associated with this syndrome and the
F-scale. It may have been more relevant during the period in which it
was produced, being shortly after World War II. The authoritarian
personality is generally related to a fascist image however it is
suggested to explain behavior of individuals in all political fields.
Trait-based frameworks
Trait-based frameworks, excluding the Freudian approach, were suggested by James Barber (1930–2004) in The Presidential Character (1972) who highlighted the importance of psychobiography
in political personality analysis. Barber suggested that leadership
personality comprised three dimensions; "character", "world view", and
"style".
Barber also proposed that leadership typology followed a pattern
leading from an individuals first political success and that it is
includes two variables; the effort that a leader puts in and the
personal satisfaction that the leader gains. This typology is fairly
limited in its dimensions.
Etheredge
(1978) proposed the importance of the traits; "dominance",
"interpersonal trust", "self-esteem" and "introversion-extroversion", in
leadership views and policy shaping. Etheredge found from studies on
leaders during the Soviet Union, that those who scored highly on
dominance were more likely to support the use of force during debate
settlement. He found that the trait introversion can lead to a lack of
co-operation, and that extroversion usually leads to cooperation and
negotiation. Further he suggested that interpersonal trust and
self-esteem were closely related to not advocating force.
Margaret Hermann (1976) introduced the Leader Trait Assessment (LTA) and advocated the development of the Profiler-Plus.
The Profiler-Plus is a computer system used to code spontaneous
interview answers for seven major characteristics; need for power,
cognitive complexity, task-interpersonal emphasis, self-confidence,
locus of control, distrust of others, and ethnocentrism. This method can
profile large bodies of leadership related text whilst removing any
subjective bias from content analysis. It is efficient and has high
reliability.
Hermann and Preston (1994) suggested 5 distinct variables of leadership
style; their involvement in policy making, their willingness to tolerate
conflict, their level and reasons for motivation, their information
managing strategies, and their conflict resolving strategies.
An alternative approach is the Operational-Code method introduced by Nathan Leites (1951) and restructured by Alexander George (1979). The code is based on five philosophical beliefs and five instrumental beliefs. A Verbs in Context
(VIC) coding system employed through the Profiler-Plus computer program
once again allows substantial bodies of written and spoken speech,
interviews and writings to be analyzed subjectively. The method
attempts to be able to predict behavior thorough applying knowledge of
various beliefs.
Although political behavior is governed and represented by a
leader the consequential influence of the leader largely depends upon
the context in which they are placed and in which type of political
climate they are running. For this reason group behavior is also
instrumental for understanding sociopolitical environments
The political psychology of groups
Group behavior
is key in understanding the structure, stability, popularity and
ability to make successful decisions of political parties. Individual
behavior deviates substantially in a group setting therefore it is
difficult to determine group behavior by looking solely at the
individuals that comprise the group. Group form and stability is based
upon several variables; size, structure, the purpose that the group
serves, group development and influences upon a group.
Group size
Group
size has various consequences. In smaller groups individuals are more
committed (Patterson and Schaeffer, 1997) and there is a lower turnover
rate (Widmeyer, Brawley and Carron, 1990).
Large groups display greater levels of divergence (O'Dell, 1968) and
less conformity (Olson and Caddell, 1994). Group performance also
diminishes with size increase, due to decreased co-ordination and
free-riding. The size of a political party or nation can therefore have consequential effects on their ability to co-ordinate and progress.
Group structure
The
structure of a group is altered by member diversity, which largely
affects its efficiency. Individual diversity with in a group has proven
to demonstrate less communication and therefore to increase conflict
(Maznevski, 1994).
This has implications for political parties based in strongly colonial
or multiracial nations.
Member diversity has consequences for; status, role allocation and role
strain within a group, all of which can cause disagreement. Thus
maintenance of group cohesion is key. Cohesion is affected by several
factors; the amount of time members spend in the group, the amount that
members like one another, the amount of reward that the group offers,
the amount of external threat to the group and the level of warmth
offered by leaders.
These factors should be considered when attempting to form an efficient
political group. President decision efficiency for example is affected
by the degree to which members of the advisory group have a hierarchical
status and by the roles that each member is assigned.
Group function
Studying
the purpose for formation of a group, whether it is serving a
"functional" purpose or an "interpersonal attraction" purpose (Mackie
and Goethals, 1987), has implications for political popularity. Often
people join groups in order to fulfill certain survival, interpersonal,
informational and collective needs.
A political party that provides; stability, clear information, offers
power to individuals and satisfies a sense of affiliation, will gain
popularity. Shutz's (1958) "Fundamental interpersonal relations orientation"
theory suggests that groups satisfy the need for control, intimacy and
inclusion. Groups also form due to natural attraction. Newcomb (1960)
states that we are drawn to others close in socioeconomic status,
beliefs, attitudes and physical appearance. Similarity in certain
respects can thus be related to how much a person is attracted to
joining one group over another.
Group development
Group development
tends to happen in several stages; forming, storming, norming,
performing, and adjourning (Tuckman, 1965). Group awareness of these
stages is important in order for members to acknowledge that a process
is taking place and that certain stages such as storming are part of
progression and that they should not be discouraged or cause fear of
instability. Awareness of group development also allows for models to be
implemented in order to manipulate different stages. External
influences upon a group will have different effects depending upon which
stage the group is at in its course. This has implications for how open
a group should be depending upon the stage of development it is at, and
on its strength.
Consistency is also a key aspect in a group for success (Wood, 1994).
The influence of conformity in groups
The
application of conformity is key for understanding group influence in
political behaviour. Decision making within a group is largely
influenced by conformity. It is theorized to occur based on two motives;
normative social influence and informational social influence (Asch, 1955).
Chance of conformity is influenced by several factors; an increase in
group size but only to a certain degree at which it plateaus, and degree
of unanimity and commitment to the group. Therefore, the degree of
popularity of a political group can be influenced by its existing size
and the believed unanimity and commitment by the public of the already
existing members. The degree by which the group conforms as a whole can
also be influenced by the degree of individuation of its members.
Also, the conformity within political groups can be related to the term,
'political coalition.' Humans represent groups as if there was a
special category of an individual. For example, for cognitive
simplicity, ancestral groups anthropomorphize each other because they
have similar thoughts, values, and a historical background. Even though
the member of a group may have an irrational or wrong argument about a
political issue, there is a high possibility for the other members to
conform to it because of the mere fact that they are in the same
coalition.
The influence of power in groups
Power
is another influential factor within a group or between separate
groups. The "critical bases of power" developed by French and Raven
(1959) allocates the following types of power as the most successful;
reward power, coercive power, legitimate power, referent power and expert power.
The way in which power is exerted upon a group can have repercussive
outcomes for popularity. Referent power results in greater popularity of
a political group or leader than coercive power (Shaw and Condelli,
1986).
This has implications for leaders to manipulate others to identify with
them, rather than to enforce consequential punishment. However, if
coercive power is enforced, success and a trusted leader (Friedland,
1976) are necessary in order for group conflict not to escalate.
Extrinsic punishment and reward are also suggested to detract from
intrinsic motivation. A sense of freedom must be advocated to the group.
Decision-making in groups
Decision-making
is an important political process which influences the course of a
country's policy. Group decision-making is largely influenced by three
rules; "majority-wins rule", "truth-wins rule", and "first-shift rule". Decision-making is also coerced by conformity. Irrational decisions are generally made during emotional periods. For example, an unpopular political party may receive more votes during a period of actual or perceived economic or political instability. Controversial studies by George Marcus (2003) however imply that high levels of anxiety
can actually cause an individual to analyze information more rationally
and carefully, resulting in more well-informed and successful
decisions.
The psychology of decision-making however must be analyzed in
accordance with whether it is within a leadership context or a between
group context. The implementation of successful decision-making is often
enhanced by group decision-making (Hill, 1982) especially if the
decision is important to the group and when the group has been working
together for an extended period of time (Watson, Michaelson and Sharp,
1991). However groups can also hinder decision-making if a correct
answer is not clear. Janis (1972) introduced the notion of Groupthink
that advocates an increased chance of groups making faulty decisions
under several conditions; strong group cohesion, isolation of group
decision from public review, the presence of a directive leader in the
group, and high stress levels.
Group polarization (Janis, 1972) suggests that group decision-making is often more extreme whether is it more risky or cautious.
"Groupthink" refers to "a mode of thinking that people engage in when
they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members'
striving for unanimity override their motivation to realistically
appraise alternative courses of action."
Techniques to establish more effective decision making skills in
political dimensions have been suggested. Hirt and Markman (1995) claim
that implementing an individual in a group to find faults and to
critique will enable the members to establish alternative view points.
George (1980) suggested "multiple advocacy" which implements that a
neutral person analyses the pros and cons of various advocate
suggestions and thus makes an informed decision.
Applied psychology theories to improve productivity of political groups include implementing "team development" techniques, "quality circles" and autonomous work groups.
Using psychology in the understanding of certain political behaviors
Evolution
Evolutionary Psychology
plays a significant role in understanding the state and people of how
the current political regime came to be. It is an approach that focuses
on the structure of human behavior claiming its dependence on the social
and ecological environment. Developed through natural selection, the
human brain functions to react appropriately to environmental challenges
of coalitional conflict using psychological mechanisms and
modifications. An example of political conflict would involve state
aggression such as war. Psychological mechanisms work to digest what is
taken in from internal and external information regarding the current
habitat and project it in the most suited form of action such as acts of
aggression, retrieval, dominance, and so forth.
Voting behavior
In
order to make inferences and predictions about behavior concerning
voting decision, certain key public influences must be considered. These
influences include the role of emotions, political socialization, political sophistication, tolerance of diversity of political views and the media. The effect of these influences on voting behavior
is best understood through theories on the formation of attitudes,
beliefs, schema, knowledge structures and the practice of information
processing. The degree to which voting decision is affected by internal
processing systems of political information and external influences,
alters the quality of making truly democratic decisions.
Conflict
The
application of psychology for understanding conflict and extreme acts of
violence can be understood in both individual and group terms.
Political conflict is often a consequence of ethnic disparity and
"ethnocentrism" Sumner (1906).
On an individual level participators in situations of conflict
can either be perpetrators, bystanders or altruists. The behavior of
perpetrators is often explained through the authoritarian personality
type. Individual differences in levels of empathy have been used to
explain whether an individual chooses to stand up to authority or ignore
a conflict. Rotter's (1954) locus of control theory in personality psychology has also been used to determine individual differences in reaction to situations of conflict.
Group behavior during conflict often affects the actions of an individual. The bystander effect
introduced by Darley and Latane (1968) demonstrates that group behavior
causes individuals to monitor whether others think it is necessary to
react in a situation and thus base their behavior on this judgment. They
also found that individuals are more likely to diffuse responsibility
in group situations. These theories can be applied to situations of
conflict and genocide in which individuals remove personal
responsibility and therefore justify their behavior. Social identity theory
explains that during the Holocaust of World War II political leaders
used the Jews as an out-group in order to increase in-group cohesion.
This allowed for the perpetrators to depersonalize from the situation
and to diffuse their responsibility. The out-groups were held in
separate confines and dehumanized in order to aid the in-group to
disengage themselves from relating.
Research by Dr. Dan Kahan has demonstrated that individuals are
resistant to accepting new political views even if they are presented
with evidence that challenges their views. The research also
demonstrated that if the individual was required to write a few
sentences about experiences they enjoyed or spend a few moments
affirming their self-worth, the individual was more likely to accept the
new political position.
Although somewhat unusual, evolutionary psychology
can also explain conflicts in politics and the international society. A
journal by Anthony C. Lopez, Rose McDermott and Michael Bang Petersen
uses this idea to give out hypothesis to explain political events.
According to the authors, instincts and psychological characteristics
developed through evolution is still existent with modern people. They
suggest human being as "adaptation executers"; people designed through
natural selection, and not "utility maximizers"; people who strive for
utility in every moment. Though a group of people, perhaps those who are
in the same political coalition, may seem as if they pursue a common
utility maximization, it is difficult to generalize the theory of
"utility maximizers" into a nation-view because people evolved in small
groups. This approach helps scholars to explain seemingly irrational
behaviors like aggressiveness in politics and international society
because "irrational behavior" would be the result of a mismatch between
the modern world and evolutionary psychology.
For example, according to evolutionary psychology, coalitional
aggression is more commonly found with males. This is because of their psychological mechanism
designed since ancestral times. During those times men had more to earn
when winning wars compared to women (they had more chance of finding a
mate, or even many mates). Also, the victorious men had more chance of
reproduction which eventually led to the succession of aggressive,
eager-to-war DNAs. As a result, the authors hypothesize that countries
with more men will tend to show more aggressive politics thereby having
more possibility of triggering conflicts within and especially among
states.
Indeed some exceptions do exists in this theory as this is just a
hypothesis. However it is viable enough to be a hypothesis to be tested
to explain certain political events like war and crisis.
Terrorism
On
an individual level terrorism has been explained as a display of
psychopathological personality disorders. Terrorists have demonstrated
to show narcissistic personality traits (Lasch, 1979, Pearlstein, 1991).
Post (2004) argues that narcissistic and borderline personality
disorders are found in terrorists and that mechanisms such as splitting and externalization are used by terrorists.
Others such as Silke (2004) and Mastors and Deffenbaugh (2007) refute
this view. Crenshaw (2004) showed that certain terrorist groups are
actually careful in not enlisting those demonstrating pathology. The authoritarian personality theory has also been used as an explanation for terrorist behavior in individuals.
In terms of explaining reasons for which individuals join
terrorist groups, motivational theories such as need for power and need
for affiliation intimacy are suggested. Festinger (1954) explained that
people often join groups in order to compare their own beliefs and
attitudes. Joining a terrorist group could be a method to remedy
individual uncertainty. Taylor and Louis (2004) explained that
individuals strive for meaningful behavior. This can also be used to
explain why terrorists look for such radical beliefs and demonstrations.
Studies on children in northern Ireland by Field (1979) have shown that
exposure to violence can lead to terrorist behavior later on.
Implicating the effect of developing acceptable norms in groups. However
this view has also been criticized (Taylor, 1998). Other theories
suggest that goal frustration can result in aggression (Dollard, Doob.
Miller, mower, and Sears, 1939)
and that aggression can lead to frustration (Borum, 2004).
Group settings can cause a social identity and terrorist behavior to
manifest. Methods such as dehumanization allow individuals to detach
more easily from moral responsibility, and group influence increase the
chance that individuals will concede to conformity and compliance.
Manipulations of social control and propaganda can also instrument
terrorist involvement.
In fact, a strategic model has been proposed to examine the
political motivations of terrorists. The strategic model, the dominant
paradigm in terrorism studies, considers terrorists are rational actors
who attack civilians for political ends. According to this view,
terrorists are political utility maximizers. The strategic model rests
on three core assumptions which are: (1)terrorists are motivated by
relatively stable and consistent political preferences; (2)terrorists
evaluate the expected political payoffs of their available options; and
(3)terrorism is adopted when the expected political return is superior
to those of alternative options. However, it turns out that terrorists'
decision-making process does not fully conform to the strategic model.
According to Abrahms, Max who is the author of "What Terrorists Really
Want: Terrorist Motives and Counterterrorism Strategy." There
are seven common tendencies that represent important empirical puzzles
for the strategic model, going against the conventional thought that
terrorists are rational actors.
