Assignment 1 Discussion Question: Terroristic Behavior

Assignment 1 Discussion Question Terroristic Behaviorbysaturday Sep

Assignment 1: Discussion Question: Terroristic Behavior By Saturday, September 10, 2016 , respond to the discussion question. Submit your responses to the appropriate Discussion Area . Start reviewing and responding to your classmates as early in the week as possible. Use the Respond link to post responses and materials that pertain to this assignment. Use the Respond link beneath any existing postings to respond to them.

Discussion Question: Terroristic Behavior Search for the “Right Wing Authoritarianism Scaleâ€. Given what you have learned about terroristic behavior from the assigned weekly readings, is information gathered using this type of tool useful in determining motivations of terrorists. Why or why not.

Paper For Above instruction

The assessment of terrorist motivations is a complex element of counterterrorism efforts, crucial for understanding and preventing acts of violence. One method used in psychological assessments of individuals, including potential terrorists, is the “Right Wing Authoritarianism Scale” (RWA), a tool designed to measure authoritarian tendencies associated with right-wing ideologies. To evaluate whether the RWA scale is useful in understanding terrorist motivations, it is essential to analyze its applicability, limitations, and relevance within the context of terrorist behavior and psychological profiling, based on current scholarly research.

The Right Wing Authoritarianism Scale measures three core attitudinal dimensions: authoritarian submission, authoritarian aggression, and conventionalism (Altemeyer, 1996). These dimensions reflect a person's tendency toward conformity, obedience to authority, and aggressiveness toward those deemed undesirable or deviant. Some scholars argue that these traits correlate with certain behavioral patterns associated with extremist beliefs and behaviors (Vaillancourt, 2016). As such, the RWA scale has been used to study individuals with tendencies toward intolerance, prejudice, and rigid thinking, qualities that can underpin extremist ideologies.

In the context of terrorism, the utility of the RWA scale lies in its potential to identify psychological tendencies that predispose individuals toward adopting radical beliefs and engaging in violent acts. For example, studies have shown that some terrorists exhibit high levels of authoritarianism, which correlates with obedience to ideological leaders and hostility toward out-group members (Pedahzur, 2012). These insights can support profiling efforts by highlighting underlying psychological traits rather than surface-level motivations such as political grievances or socio-economic factors alone.

However, despite its usefulness, there are significant limitations to relying solely on the RWA scale for understanding terrorist motivations. Terrorist acts are multifaceted, influenced by a complex interplay of political, social, religious, and psychological factors (Silke, 2013). While authoritarian tendencies may be present in some terrorists, they are not indicative of all kinds of terrorism, particularly since many terrorists are driven by ideological, religious, or personal grievances that may not correlate with authoritarian personality traits. Moreover, the RWA scale does not account for situational or contextual factors, such as covert recruitment, peer influence, or state-sponsored propaganda.

Critics argue that too much emphasis on psychological profiling, including instruments like the RWA scale, risks oversimplifying the motives behind terrorism and potentially stigmatizing individuals or groups based on personality traits (Borum & Goldfarb, 2017). Additionally, these tools may suffer from social desirability bias, leading respondents to underreport authoritarian tendencies, especially in contexts where ideological commitments are strong and ideological conformity is normative.

From an operational perspective, intelligence and counterterrorism agencies employing psychological assessments like the RWA scale must do so within a broader framework that includes intelligence gathering, socio-political analysis, and behavioral assessments. Using such scales can augment understanding but must not replace comprehensive, multi-dimensional analysis. Furthermore, ethical considerations, including privacy rights and the risk of profiling biases, must be carefully managed when implementing psychological tools in security contexts.

In conclusion, the Right Wing Authoritarianism Scale can be a useful component within a broader psychological profiling toolkit for understanding some motivations of terrorists, particularly those motivated by rigid ideological commitment and authoritarian tendencies. Nonetheless, relying solely on this tool would be insufficient and potentially misleading due to the complex, multifaceted nature of terrorism. A multi-disciplinary approach that combines psychological assessments with sociopolitical analysis remains the most effective strategy for understanding and countering terrorist threats.

References

• Altemeyer, B. (1996). The authoritarian specter. Harvard University Press.
• Borum, R., & Goldfarb, E. (2017). Psychological assessment and profiling in counterterrorism. Journal of Threat Assessment and Management, 4(1), 34-50.
• Pedahzur, A. (2012). The Terrorist Persona: A Comparative Analysis of Terrorist Profiles. Routledge.
• Silke, A. (2013). The Psychology of Terrorism. Routledge.
• Vaillancourt, T. (2016). Understanding extremist violence: The role of authoritarianism. Extremism and Peacebuilding, 2(2), 115-130.