The casualty rate of individuals wounded or killed by religious terrorists' attacks is rapidly increasing. A report by the UN Development Program revealed that 45% of global terrorist attacks in 2016 happened in Arab countries.
Few empirical studies have been conducted to investigate the psychological basis for terrorism and consequently, much of what is known about the psychology of terrorism is based on conjecture and anecdotal information. Furthermore, little empirical research has been done with members of ISIS and Al-Qaeda. This is due in part to the great difficulty of gaining access to these groups.
A study in Psychology of Violence by Othman Alkhadher and Nicholas C. Scull addresses this gap in understanding religious-based terrorism by attempting to analyze if armed political violence can be systematically and significantly associated with moral judgment, critical thinking, and Islamic fundamentalism.
They recruited 30 males (9 Al-Qaeda, and 21 ISIS; 18 Kuwaitis; 3 Syrians; 1 Egyptian, 1 Lebanese, and 7 had no nationality; Age M=36.0; sd=7.5) housed in Kuwait's Central Prison. The men were convicted for different crimes all pertaining to terrorism. They spent between 2 to 12 years in jail, and their verdicts ranged from 3 years to life sentence. One prisoner was issued the death penalty.
Using sound measures for assessing armed political violence, the study found that individuals with low moral judgment and critical thinking ability but high fundamentalism are more likely to engage in violent political behavior. Interestingly, the correlation between fundamentalism and violent political behavior was smaller in a previous study1 where the subjects were civilians rather than members of ISIS and Al-Qaeda.
The fact that the findings with members of ISIS and Al-Qaeda showed higher associations between armed political violence and fundamentalism demonstrates how members of religious extremist groups may have radically different moral parameters than civilian populations. Moreover, the negative correlation between moral judgment and armed political violence may demonstrate that the participants believe their involvement in a religious extremist group is a morally just endeavor.
While the association of fundamentalism with violence is well documented, this study could be the first to empirically support the association between critical thinking, particularly recognition of assumptions, and armed political violence.
Recognition of assumptions is concerned with recognizing unstated assumptions or presuppositions in given statements or assertions. Those who lack this ability are less likely to recognize the complexity of their religion or other issues in their daily lives.
Based on this finding, it may be beneficial to teach critical thinking in schools and colleges.
Contrary to what one might expect from members of terrorist groups, most participants were at a moral conventional level (n=19), while the remaining were at a preconventional level (n=11). This suggests that one's moral stage might not necessarily protect a person from identifying with criminal acts.
Future research would benefit from further investigating why this association has not been generalized to Muslim civilians or other Islamic groups such as the Tableegh and Muslim Brotherhood.
1Alkhadher, O. (2017). [The relationship between Islamic fundamentalism and violence]. Annals of the Arts and Social Sciences. 488(38), 11–98.
Citation
- Alkhadher, O., & Scull, N. C. (2020). Can moral judgment, critical thinking, and Islamic fundamentalism explain ISIS and Al-Qaeda’s armed political violence? Psychology of Violence, 10(2), 143–151. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/vio0000242
Note: This article is in the Social Psychology and Social Processes topic area. View more articles in the Social Psychology and Social Processes topic area.