Islamist terrorists and American white supremacists have more in common than one might think, says Arie W. Kruglanski, PhD, an APA fellow and distinguished university professor in psychology at the University of Maryland, College Park. “These two movements may appear very different on the surface, but the underlying psychological factors are very similar and conform to our model of radicalization,” he says.
Kruglanski began his career studying motivated cognition and goal pursuit. But in 2001, following the 9/11 attacks, his research focus shifted to terrorism and radicalization when he joined a National Academy of Sciences panel on the psychology of terrorism.
He has since studied individual, organized and suicide terrorism, as well as the processes of radicalization and deradicalization. In 2005, with support from the Department of Homeland Security, he co-founded STARTopens in new window, the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism.
Kruglanski’s research involves studies of extremism, content analyses of terrorists’ messaging and codification of national radicalization records. He also studies former extremists in prisons and rehabilitation programs and makes recommendations for counteracting terrorism—none of which involve military force, policing or intelligence.
Kruglanski explained some of his findings to the Monitor.
How has your understanding of the psychological factors underlying violent extremism evolved?
In our work at START, we identified three major factors—need, narrative and network—and showed how they work together. When I first began reviewing the literature, I saw that many authors emphasized the importance of motivation, such as vengeance, adoration of the leader, money, the perks of paradise and meeting the Prophet Muhammad in heaven. When we examined these motivations, we concluded that underlying each of these specific motivations is this universal need for significance and respect, which every human has to some extent.
The ideological narrative—the story a terrorist group tells to justify its actions—links that significance with violent extremism. For example, an Islamist extremist may be promised rewards in heaven for carrying out a suicide attack. This narrative tells you what to do in accordance with the group values to attain significance. If you advance, defend and make sacrifices for those values, the group is going to repay you with respect and veneration, thus lending you the status of a celebrity, which basks in significance.
Psychiatrist Marc Sageman had already introduced the idea of networks, and we deduced that they are important because they validate the narrative. The network of like-minded extremists acts as the in-group of the person, dispensing respect as a reward for acting on the dictates of the narrative. This is especially important for a narrative that’s deviant from mainstream society, one that justifies violence and mayhem and the killing of innocents. The network permits people to act violently in accordance with the narrative.
How does this framework apply to a specific extremist group, such as white supremacists?
White supremacists differ from other kinds of violent extremists in terms of their ideology. Whereas other terrorists may subscribe to a religious or socialist narrative, this group has a specific kind of grievance and a different alleged enemy—the government, a minority group, refugees or immigrants. But in terms of the underlying dynamics of need, narrative and network, they are similar to other terrorist groups. For instance, we have found that white supremacists may leave the movement after becoming disenchanted with the ideological narrative or because they are disappointed with the hypocrisy and backstabbing within the network.
What do you recommend governments do to prevent terrorism?
The need for significance has to be satisfied in socially constructive ways. So, first of all, it would behoove governments not to create loss of significance by promoting prejudice and inequality against certain groups. The second recommendation is to emphasize narratives that are generally accepted, compelling and delivered by charismatic communicators who promote these constructive ways of gaining significance. An example of this is John F. Kennedy’s inaugural address to the nation in 1961, which challenged and inspired young people to contribute to American society. And finally, governments should create movements in which people will be accepted, revered and respected for counterviolence activities.
Some governments prefer to put all their eggs into the basket of military, policing and intelligence when it comes to countering extremism. We find that this is counterproductive because you cannot kill an ideology and you cannot suppress people’s feelings of disempowerment or humiliation.
How can governments restore personal significance?
At the very least, they should provide individuals with the means to obtain significance-bestowing occupations. Provide them with vocational education and the opportunity to earn their living. Second, create organizations such as the Peace Corps and Doctors Without Borders that take advantage of young people’s desire to be idealistic and to do something for their country. It’s important to find ways to support and encourage that kind of thing because there’s no greater significance than significance in the service of sacred values or ideas. Governments should also promote idealism among young people and organize volunteer activities that will channel their desire for significance in a pro-social, constructive direction.
Because the motivation for significance is so prevalent and so fundamental, the interventions must be broad in scope and embody a “whole society” approach from the level of kindergarten onward. A good example is the Aarhus model in Denmark, led by psychologist Preben Bertelsen, which provides outreach and counseling to young people in an effort to prevent homegrown terrorism.
What questions remain about terrorism and radicalization?
The main question is how to translate these insights, which by now are based on a very extensive body of work, into best practices that can differ between contexts, for instance, preventing school bullying from leading to active gun events. Communities, school systems and policymakers need tools and training based on this research. This cannot be done by psychologists alone; it requires a policy shaped by the government that realizes the danger radicalization poses to society.
Dr. Kruglanski will release two books in 2019: “The Three Pillars of Radicalization” and “Radicals’ Journey: German Neo-Nazis’ Voyage to the Fringe and Back.”
