In this interview, Dr. Shahpar Shahraki, a psychiatrist, neurologist, and political psychology researcher, explores the psychological underpinnings of terrorism. She argues that the identity of victims is irrelevant to terrorists—what matters is the public’s attention and the message conveyed through violence. From the interplay of personality, ideology, and environment to the surprising ordinariness of extremists, the following conversation offers a nuanced perspective on what drives such behavior.
1- Please elaborate on the perspectives of foundational schools of psychology and psychoanalysis regarding terrorism.
The field of political psychology is, to a large extent, still in its infancy. While there are many political science psychologists, only a small number focus their research on terrorism. A researcher named John Horgan sought to identify a so-called “terrorist personality.” However, after years of relying on theories emphasizing the uniqueness or “psychological abnormality” of terrorists, terrorism is now studied in a more situational manner, akin to Stanley Milgram’s approach to genocide. Today, most researchers view terrorism less as a product of an individual terrorist’s personality traits and more as a result of the surrounding circumstances. Many analysts now believe there is no singular “terrorist personality.” Furthermore, there is growing consensus that political extremists are, in many ways, “normal” rather than deranged, though they are deeply influenced by an ideology that justifies their actions.
When attempting to apply psychological models to terrorist behavior, we are traditionally drawn to psychoanalytic theories such as the frustration-aggression hypothesis, the narcissism-aggression theory, and other psychoanalytic frameworks.
Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis: This is one of the instinct-based theories that has long been used to explain terrorism. Proposed by John Dollard and his colleagues, this theory posits that violence emerges when an individual is thwarted in achieving a goal or prevented from reaching it. It suggests that terrorism is a form of aggression in which one target is substituted for another. The argument follows that a terrorist’s personality is rooted in personal frustrations from their life.
Narcissism-Aggression Theory: Some researchers, notably Richard Perlstein in The Mind of the Political Terrorist, as well as John Crayton and Gerald Post, argue that extreme narcissism offers a compelling explanation for terrorist activity. A narcissist perceives themselves as profoundly significant in the world. Proponents of the narcissistic rage theory have found evidence that many terrorists have experienced major personal setbacks, such as poor academic performance.
2- Personality or Society (Political and Historical Conditions): Which factor do you consider more significant in the inclination toward terrorism?
As mentioned, most researchers attribute terrorism more to the conditions and environment surrounding an individual than to their personal traits. Contrary to common assumptions, if we examine the phenomenon of suicide terrorism, we realize that terrorism is so complex that it cannot be fully explained by purely instinctual or situational factors alone. A satisfactory explanation of this phenomenon requires the integration of both approaches. Thus, in response to this question, it must be said that neither the individual’s disposition nor their environment can be discounted.
3- How do psychotic and neurotic disorders—such as sadism, antisocial behavior, and others—influence this tendency?
It should be noted here that conducting diagnostic experiments on terrorists is not feasible due to lack of access. However, it cannot be assumed that “abnormal actions” necessarily stem from “abnormal individuals.” Horgan provides evidence that most terrorists are psychologically normal and certainly not insane. He notes that while psychoanalytic approaches informally emphasize the role of antisocial tendencies in shaping a terrorist’s personality, there is little evidence to support antisocial behavior as a defining psychological element in terrorist organizations. On the contrary, terrorist groups heavily prioritize organization, secrecy, and personal discipline, suggesting they tend to exclude unstable individuals who might jeopardize these requirements. In short, there is agreement that terrorists are more likely to be ordinary individuals than antisocial ones. After years of research, psychologists can confidently assert that the most striking characteristic of terrorists is their ordinariness.
4- What types of personalities are more inclined to join terrorist groups?
Based on research, evidence for a distinct “terrorist personality” is weak. Most studies indicate that terrorists do not possess unique personality traits that significantly differ from those of normal individuals in society. Additionally, evidence suggests that many terrorists find killing difficult and that their victims are often chosen randomly. Narcissistic personalities, for instance, are unlikely to become suicide terrorists. Moreover, fixating on a specific terrorist personality risks downplaying the role of ideology, which is a critical factor in terrorist actions. All terrorists are deeply committed to a political, religious, nationalist, or ideological cause.
5- How does a terrorist view the general public? Do they see themselves as separate or superior? Are they cynical toward people, or do they consider them enemies?
What distinguishes terrorism from other forms of violence is that it consists of acts designed to dramatically capture public attention, instilling fear that extends beyond the immediate victims. From a terrorist’s perspective, the identity of the victims is often secondary—or entirely irrelevant—while the audience witnessing the event is paramount. This distinction between actual victims and the intended audience is a hallmark of terrorism. In essence, terrorism is theater. In response to your question, victims hold little significance for terrorists—what truly matters is the message their actions send.
To what extent does humiliation contribute to the inclination toward violence and terrorism?
This question can be partially addressed through Freud’s perspective. Freud argued that humans are often driven by impulses they are unaware of. Unresolved personal conflicts can lead to reactions such as violence or terrorism. For example, repressed psychological trauma in an individual’s unconscious, if unresolved, may manifest as violent acts later in life.
6- Can repressed sexual desires motivate terrorists?
Sexual desires are among the drives that, if not addressed appropriately in an individual’s life, can manifest in various neurotic forms, including acts of violence.
Dr. Shahraki’s reflections illuminate the intricate nature of terrorism, weaving together psychological frameworks and tangible realities- a topic that disturbs as much as it demands understanding.