Terrorists’ Minds and Radicalization Processes

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Psychological and Behavioral Factors in Radicalization
Radicalization Processes: Moghaddam’s Staircase and Borum’s Pathway Models
Psychological and Behavioral Factors in Disengagement
Counter Radicalization and De-radicalization
Conclusion
References

Introduction

Terrorism is defined as the unlawful use of force or violence against a person or a country with the express purpose of coercing or intimidating a government and its populace into specific political and social goals. Domestic and international terrorism are varieties of terrorism, as noted by Ravndal and Bjørgo (2018). Domestic terrorism begins within the country’s borders, with no external influence. International terrorism, on the other hand, is committed by a foreign government against a specific country. Terrorism has been the most severe national security danger that the United States has faced in recent years (Ravndal & Bjørgo, 2018). Combating terrorism requires essential fighting bodies/agencies to grasp the thoughts of the terrorist, not only in the United States but worldwide. Terrorists do not wake up one day and decide to commit violent or illegal activities; instead, radicalization is a process that encompasses both psychological and behavioral variables.

Furthermore, the assumption that once one becomes a terrorist, one cannot disengage from it is incorrect because a terrorist may quit violent or unlawful behaviors and become a better person again. It is critical to analyze the radicalization process using proper models to understand how terrorists think and the forces that drive them to terrorism. As a result, this research contrasts Moghaddam’s Staircase to Terrorism and Borum’s Pathway radicalization models in terms of psychological and behavioral aspects. The paper will also discuss the psychological and behavioral elements contributing to terrorist disengagement. Finally, this essay will discuss de-radicalization and counter-radicalization as terrorism is concerned.

Psychological and Behavioral Factors in Radicalization

Understanding the psychological and behavioral elements contributing to the radicalization process is critical before comparing the two selected radicalization models. Terrorism, according to Ozer and Bertelsen (2019), is a process that begins with political and religious disagreements and progresses to violence. According to recent research, people who perpetrate terrorism are often disgruntled and alienated. These people believe their engagement in religion or politics does not affect their life (Ozer & Bertelsen, 2019). Because of the social justice these groups strive for; they feel that violent actions against citizens or countries are acceptable. Furthermore, terrorists organize movements to get psychological and social advantages such as companionship and personal or collective recognition (Ozer & Bertelsen, 2019). The main issue is the impression of violence and the need for personal belonging. According to Morgades-Bamba et al. (2018), the radicalization process is frequently triggered by a desire to blend in with a group or to do something that would garner global notice. As a result, terrorists believe that violence or the unlawful use of force against governments and their populations is justified, and they will not hesitate to cause terror.

The behavioral aspects associated with the radicalization process are determined mainly by one’s personality, circumstances, and upbringing. Human conduct and personality are learned via observation and life experiences, according to Smith et al. (2019), and adolescence plays an integral part in forming one’s character. According to social cognitive learning theory, human actions and emotions result from life observation and the impact of the environment in which one matures (Smith et al., 2019). According to the social learning theory, a person’s early harsh geography might turn them against governments and lead to terrorism. Furthermore, exposure to violence at a young age or throughout one’s life increases the likelihood of a violent future.

Radicalization Processes: Moghaddam’s Staircase and Borum’s Pathway Models

Fathal Moghaddam of Georgetown University created the Staircase explanation for terrorism. According to Arbib et al. (2019), the Staircase model of terrorism is divided into five primary floors, with the base floor included. The ground floor reflects psychological material situation interpretations (Arbib et al., 2019). The first flow represents the imagined determination to react against unfair treatment, the second level represents the displacement of complaints, and the third floor describes moral involvement. The fourth floor of the Staircase model represents the perceived legitimacy of the group housing terrorists, while the fifth floor represents the terrorist act (Arbib et al., 2019). The goal of the Staircase Terrorism Model was to comprehend the radicalization process using a staircase analogy so that the appropriate bodies fighting terrorism could reduce the number of people who made it to the fifth floor, which represented terrorism.

Borum’s Pathway, often known as Borum’s Four Stage Model, is another proven radicalization process model that may be used to comprehend terrorist activities better. Randy Borum of South Florida University created the model (Pagan et al., 2020). Borum’s Pathway models were developed to inform law enforcement about the radicalization process. According to Pagan et al. (2020), the Pathway radicalization model demonstrates how little complaints can be transformed into deep hatred that leads to terrorism. The model consists of four phases that lead to a terrorist act (Pagan et al., 2020). The model’s first step is the manifestation of grievances, which indicates that something is wrong; the second step is injustices, which suggests a lack of fairness; the third step is target attribution, which means a fault; and the fourth step is distancing, which indicates that someone is evil (Pagan et al., 2020). This model attempts to forecast the factors contributing to radicalization, which practical law enforcement efforts could avoid.

From the definition and description of the two selected models, it is worth noting that both have similarities and differences. Moghaddam’s Staircase and Borum’s Pathway models agree that radicalization is a process. This has been explained both through the stages and steps seen in each model. As seen in both models, grievances are the basis upon which an individual builds psychological and behavioral factors that push one to terrorism (Pagan et al., 2020). Moreover, the models agree that radicalization is a stepwise process in which one stage or step leads to another and eventually reaches the act of terrorism.

However, the models differ significantly regarding how radicalization occurs in each model. While Moghaddam’s Staircase has six steps, Borum’s Pathway model has four steps to explain radicalization. As Kruglanski et al. (2022) noted, the Staircase model starts with grievances and ends with terror attacks. On the other hand, Borum’s Pathway starts with grievances, but the result is the dehumanization of an individual even without committing a crime. As such, it can be said that Moghaddam’s Staircase gives much information regarding the radicalization process because it entails an explanation of the psychology behind each level and perception besides critical questions and examples (Kruglanski et al., 2022). Borum’s Pathway model base its strength on the analysis of noticeable markers that are perceived to be expected in extremist in society. According to Levinsson et al. (2021), the two selected models have the strength that feeds into each other and can be exploited to identify individuals undergoing radicalization. Therefore, Borum’s Pathway model should identify individuals and apply Moghaddam’s Staircase model to explain radicalization and devise methods to combat the process.

Psychological and Behavioral Factors in Disengagement

Disengagement, as terrorism is concerned, refers to attempts that a terrorist takes to stop their violent or unlawful acts. While few types of research have been conducted on psychological and behavioral factors leading to disengagement, the studies agree that terrorist could cease their evil ways and be better people again. According to Corner and Gill (2019), two types of disengagement exist, which are physical and psychological. Burnout, psychological distress, fear, and regret are some identified reasons for terrorist physical disengagement (Corner & Gill, 2019). Other studies have identified characteristics such as the desire to marry and have children, coping in society, victimization, and job as essential contributors to terrorist physical disengagement (Corner & Gill, 2019). Psychological disengagement could result in due incarceration, surrendering to the relevant authority, or the effects of isolation from community members.

Counter Radicalization and De-radicalization

An individual who opts out or shows the intent of disengaging from a terrorist organization needs support from the government and people so that they become welcomed back as ordinary members of society. As such, the focus of counter-radicalization programs will be that of the United States and the United Kingdom; the de-radicalization of Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Egypt will give insights into what should be done to accept disengaging terrorists back into society. According to Oleś (2020), the United States’ radicalization programs mainly focus on developing a rapport between immigrants, its citizens, and law enforcement officers. The purpose of counter-radicalization in many countries that adopt it is to mitigate the emergence of a violent extremist. Counter-radicalization often occurs before conviction, with an accurate pointing to disengagement, reintegration, and rehabilitation. Hence, counter-radicalization identifies those individuals with high odds of becoming terrorists and taking measures to prevent such violent behavior from manifesting.

De-radicalization programs target that individual terrorists that have already been convicted or have shown the intent of disengaging from such groups. This can be accomplished through detainee security, the involvement of society through vulnerable communities to devise appropriate tendencies, ideology, which involves clergy to create counterarguments, and politics, which consists in neutralizing threats (Oleś, 2020). According to Sikkens (2018), Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Egypt are among the countries studying and applying de-radicalization programs to accept convicted terrorists into society. De-radicalization common theme entails intellectual, emotional, and social components (Sikkens, 2018). Counter-radicalization and de-radicalization have a common goal: the initiation of terrorists’ disengagement from a particular group.

The significant difference is that counter-radicalization focuses on individuals before the act of violence, while de-radicalization deals with individuals who have already been convicted or surrendered. The strength of counter-radicalization is that it helps prevent the emergence of terrorists. However, its major weakness is that it usually is not executed correctly. On the other hand, de-radicalization significant strength is that it is humane and renders second chances for terrorists to live a better life once more. Its weakness is that individuals who surrender or turn themselves are detained or killed. As such, few terrorists show intent to disengage from their groups.

Conclusion

The discussion in this paper has proved that the mind of a terrorist is not as simple as people think. Terrorists’ minds are complicated as several psychological and behavioral factors could turn an ordinary person into a radical. As highlighted by Moghaddam and Borum’s theories, radicalization does not happen overnight but involves a lengthy process that leads to a person becoming violent and harsh on others. With counter-radicalization and de-radicalization programs, this paper has proved that terrorism is preventable and already convicted criminals could be accepted back into society if they are dedicated to disengaging from their terrorist groups. However, terrorism remains the most significant threat facing the United States and other countries that need a prompt understanding of terrorists’ minds to devise ways of combating the act.

References

Arbib, C., Moghaddam, M. T., & Muccini, H. (2019). IoT flows A network flow model application to a building evacuation. AIRO Springer Series, 2, 115–131.

Corner, E., & Gill, P. (2019). Psychological distress, terrorist involvement, and disengagement from terrorism: A sequence analysis approach.Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 36, 499–526.

Kruglanski, A. W., Molinario, E., Ellenberg, M., & Di Cicco, G. (2022). Terrorism and conspiracy theories: A view from the 3N model of radicalization.Current Opinion in Psychology, 47, 101396.

Levinsson, A., Miconi, D., Li, Z., Frounfelker, R. L., & Rousseau, C. (2021). Conspiracy theories, psychological distress, and sympathy for violent radicalization in young adults during the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(15), 7846.

Morgades-Bamba, C. I., Raynal, P., & Chabrol, H. (2018). Exploring the radicalization process in young women. Terrorism and Political Violence, 32(7), 1439–1457.

Oleś, P. (2020). Towards dialogical models of radicalization and de-radicalization.Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 33(3), 290–306.

Ozer, S., & Bertelsen, P. (2019). Countering radicalization: An empirical examination from a life psychological perspective.Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 25(3), 211–225.

Pagan, D. C., Schmidt, G. H., Borum, A. D., Long, T. J., & Beaudoin, A. J. (2020). Informing mechanical model development using lower-dimensional descriptions of lattice distortion.Integrating Materials and Manufacturing Innovation, 9(4), 459–471.

Ravndal, J. A., & Bjørgo, T. (2018). Investigating terrorism from the extreme right: A review of past and present research. Perspectives on Terrorism, 12(6), 5–22.

Sikkens, E. M. (2018). Relating to Radicalism: Family and Upbringing Experiences in Radicalization and De-radicalization. Dspace.library.uu.nl.

Smith, L. G. E., Blackwood, L., & Thomas, E. F. (2019). The need to refocus on the group as the site of radicalization. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(2), 327–352.

Click Here To Order Now!