Assessing the behavioural trajectories of terrorists: The role of psychological resilience

ABSTRACT

Within studies critically examining terrorist behaviour, the examination of mental health has largely focused on the relationship with the movement towards terrorist involvement. The impact of engagement in terrorism upon mental health has rarely been studied. However, recent research has shown that there is an association between terrorist engagement and the occurrence of mental health problems across the spectrum of terrorist involvement. This work therefore expands on previous research, and disaggregates three discrete stages of terrorist involvement; pre-engagement, engagement, and disengagement, to critically examine the role of psychological resilience on mental health. To determine whether psychological resilience protects against the negative psychological repercussions of terrorist involvement, we undertake cluster analyses. Results indicate that there is a subset of actors who demonstrate psychological resilience, and appear to maintain their mental health despite their experiences during involvement in terrorism.

KEYWORDS:

• Terrorism
• Resilience
• Mental Health

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. A principal defined as equifinality (Cichetti & Rogosch, 1996).

2. A principal defined as multifinality (Cichetti & Rogosch, 1996).

3. Defined as “discrete, observable events standing for significant life changes, with a relatively clear onset and offset” (Wheaton & Montazer, 2010, p. 179).

4. When compared with the examination of other external protective factors.

5. Than both lone-actor terrorist and general population samples.

6. As the analyses conducted were examining distinct phases in a life course, autobiographies chosen for analysis gave insight into early life experiences, periods prior to engagement, during engagement, and post disengagement. Autobiographies which did not include writings on these periods were not taken forward for examination.

7. With the exception of identifying whether the terrorist was still alive, where information was also sought externally.

8. Thirteen (11.9%) individuals disclosed they suffered from a mental disorder during their life. This figure is well below the general population average of 25%, supporting the findings of Corner et al. (2016) who highlighted the lower than average prevalence of diagnosed mental disorder among group-based terrorists.

9. The phenomenon of concealment has been well documented across literature examining stigma. For more information, see recent works by Bril-Barniv, Moran, Naaman, Roe, and Kanieli-Miller (2017), Elliot and Doane (2015), Oexele et al. (2017).

10. Defined as the range of symptoms that may concern, confuse, or trouble an individual. Psychological distress has a wider remit than mental disorder, as it does not require a specific set of medically defined attributes. An individual suffering from psychological distress may exhibit some symptoms commonly identified across mental disorders. These symptoms may resolve without medical intervention; however, the long-term experience of such symptoms may lead to the diagnosis of a specific mental disorder. Life events influence the onset of psychological distress.

11. As with the discussion regarding disclosure of diagnosed mental disorder, the prevalence of reported distress is likely to be lower than the lived experiences of the terrorists.

12. In this research, disengagement was defined as “the process whereby an individual experiences a change in role or function that is usually associated with a reduction of violent participation. It may not necessarily involve leaving the movement, but is most frequently associated with significant temporary or permanent role change.” (Horgan, 2009, p. 152).

13. Plural intended.

14. The reported prevalence of psychological distress were identified as 19.1% for those classified in the resilient trajectory, 10.6% for those classified in the fused trajectory, 34% for those classified in the vulnerable trajectory, and 36.2% for those classified in the discontented trajectory.

15. Although those in the fused trajectory had a lower reported prevalence of psychological distress, these individuals also reported far less experiences of the stressors reported by those in the resilient trajectory.

16. Corner and Gill note; “when individuals did not disclose psychological distress, they are negatively impacted by their journeys through terrorism. This is further supported by the evidence which shows that physical illness occurred following a range of specific stressors, physiological distress, guilt over actions, and problems with living a clandestine lifestyle. This behaviour string suggests that in some cases, physical illness may be a physical manifestation of deep seated psychological distress.”

17. Likely due to the rates of imprisonment (25%; which was the second highest prevalence across trajectories (only discontented was higher at 43.3%) during engagement in this trajectory.

18. Identity fusion occurs as a consequence of a group’s shared identity. In identity fusion, the boundaries, which normally demarcate the personal and social self, become highly porous, allowing aspects of both the personal and social self to cross over, without reducing the integrity of either self. This results in robust feelings of connectedness with both the group and group members. These strong feelings nurture relational ties to others within the group (Swann et al., 2012).

19. Literature on disengagement encourages a conceptual distinction between these two phenomena, where those who disengage changing their behaviours, but those who deradicalize also changing their cognitions and belief system (Ferguson, 2015; Horgan & Braddock, 2010).

20. See for example, Ellis et al. (2016).

Additional information

Funding

This research was, in part, supported by the Office of University Programs Science and Technology Directorate of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security through the Center for the Study of Terrorism and Behavior [CSTAB – Center Lead] Grant made to the START Consortium [Grant # 2012-ST-61-CS0001]. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, or START.

Notes on contributors

Emily Corner

Dr Emily Corner is a Senior Lecturer of criminology in the Centre for Social Research and Methods at the Australian National University. She has worked on research projects funded by Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, the European Union, the National Institute of Justice, the Department of Defence, and the Department of Home Affairs. She has extensive experience in undertaking systematic quantitative and qualitative research relating to lone and group-based terrorism, radicalisation, mass murderers, grievance-fuelled violence, and fixated individuals. Her published works focus on decision making and mental health in lone and group-based terrorism, radicalisation, mass murderers, and fixated individuals.

Helen Taylor

Dr Helen Taylor is a senior research officer at the Centre for Social Research and Methods (CSRM) at the Australian National University. Dr Taylor has expertise in the study of right-wing terrorism, hate crimes, reoffending, and offender management, as well as expertise in mixed methods research and large-scale systematic reviews. Dr Taylor is the Research Manager for the Reducing Recidivism Research Collaboration, a $1.23m partnership between the CSRM and the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) Government to evaluate initiatives that aim to reduce reoffending in the ACT. Dr Caitlin Clemmow leads the Jill Dando Institute Research Lab and is a member of UCL’s Counterterrorism Research Group. Her research focusses on risk and protective factors for grievance-fuelled violence.