The Nexus Between Political Grievances,

Extremism, and the Impact on Emotional and

Psychological Well-being: A Political Psychology
Analytical Study

Abstract:
To comprehend the reasons, incentives, and factors that influence terrorist activity, this research study
conducts a thorough analysis of the scientific and professional literature to investigate the psychology of
terrorism. Although psychoanalytic theories served as the foundation for early analyses, the field has
since expanded to consider other methods. The study highlights the variety of paths someone can take to
become terrorists, highlighting differences in motivations for entering, staying in, and departing from
terrorist groups. The need for identity, a sense of belonging, and the perception of injustice are common
vulnerabilities among would-be terrorists. There is no one "terrorist personality" or precise psychological
profile, despite popular belief, and mental illness is not a major contributing component to the explanation
of terrorism. The study examines how terrorist ideologies mandate and justify certain acts, highlighting
the absolute nature of these beliefs. In addition to highlighting the impact of social and environmental
elements in influencing terrorist conduct, the study draws attention to the breakdown of natural barriers
that prevent human slaughter. Terrorist groups' internal and external weaknesses are examined, with a
focus on how important strong leadership is to upholding group norms and collective belief systems. The
report also highlights the paucity of thorough and comprehensive studies on terrorist recruitment,
proposing that recruitment activities should be concentrated in impoverished and disgruntled areas. The
conclusion highlights the necessity for in-depth assessments of incident-related behaviors to improve our
understanding of the psychology of terrorism and calls for operationally informed, behavior-focused, and
culturally sensitive future research. By using a political psychology perspective, this study helps identify
the underlying causes and suggests mitigation techniques for the negative impact of political grievances
and extremism on individual and societal well-being.

Introduction:
In the current landscape of national security, terrorism stands out as one of the most significant threats,
prompting substantial resource allocation for prevention efforts. However, a conceptual and empirically
based understanding of terrorists and their actions remains elusive, presenting challenges at various levels
of decision-making. The goal of this research is to close this gap by performing a thorough analysis of the
professional and scientific literature on the "psychology of terrorism." Psychology is a relevant field of
study, even though it is acknowledged that it may not be the only analytical framework. Psychology is the
science of human behavior. This paper's main goal is to compile the body of research regarding the
psychological aspects of terrorism. Focusing on deliberate acts of violence against civilian non-
combatants for ideological, religious, or political purposes, psychological elements explore terrorists'
motivations, thought processes, and actions. With terrorism being a growing threat to the welfare of
society worldwide, this study attempts to advance our understanding of the complex psychological
processes that motivate political violence. Considering the variety of terrorist activities, our modest goal
is to assess the contribution of psychological theories and research to the understanding of terrorism
rather than to provide a single explanation. This analysis examines the relevance of psychological
elements while taking Walter Laqueur's cautionary comment on the dynamic nature of terrorism into
consideration. Laqueur warned against attempting a "general theory" in this regard from psychiatrist
Jerrold Post that different terrorist groups exhibit distinct psychologies.

The study moves from discussing the larger background of terrorism to focusing on the growing
acknowledgement of political violence and terrorism as a worldwide social hazard. Attacks with
widespread media attention, including 9/11, the London 7/7 bombs, the Paris 13/11 incident, and the
Brussels 22/3 attacks, highlight how vital it is to comprehend how terrorism affects mental health on a
psychological level. Political violence has many negative repercussions, as seen by the surge in terrorism-
related deaths and its indirect effects on mental health outcomes, such as PTSD, depression, anxiety
disorders, and drug use disorders. The introduction delves more into the concept of "mass shootings" and
how they might be categorized as acts of terrorism, stressing the multiplicity of motivations that can
include rage, personal grudges, or political objectives. The study introduces the term "radicalization" as a
multi-step process that culminates in acts of mass violence and emphasizes the importance of a public
health approach to identify risk and protective factors for prevention. The dynamic character of terrorist
groups is highlighted by discussing societal determinants linked to radicalization, including low social
cohesiveness, discrimination, low cultural integration, and social inequities. The small amount of data
relating radicalization and mental health is acknowledged, refuting the belief that mental illness and
violence are synonymous. By undertaking a systematic evaluation of research on the connection between
radicalization, mass violence acts, and mental health traits, the study seeks to close this gap. The idea that
certain mental health factors could predispose people to commit acts of mass violence is investigated,
with a particular emphasis on potential distinctions in mental health traits and radicalization processes
between lone actor terrorists and collective terrorists.

In brief, this study aims to disentangle the complex relationship between political grievances, extremism,
and their psychological effects on people's quality of life and society. In addition to adding to the larger
conversation on mental health and national security, the paper seeks to give a basis for comprehending the
intricate processes underlying political violence by combining existing evidence and doing a systematic
evaluation.

Research Questions:
  How do unresolved political grievances contribute to the emergence and sustenance of
extremism?
 What are the emotional and psychological repercussions of political extremism on the nation's
well-being?
 How do perceptions of injustice, identity, and the need for belonging contribute to the
vulnerabilities of potential terrorists?
 What is the impact of terrorist ideologies in justifying and mandating certain behaviors among
individuals?
 How do social and environmental influences erode natural barriers inhibiting human killing,
leading to the adoption of extremist behaviors?

Literature Survey:

Comprehending violent conduct, be it within the framework of human relationships or acts of terrorism, is
an intricate undertaking. Prior to exploring the psychological perspectives on terrorism, it is important to
consider the ways in which psychology and other behavioral disciplines have attempted to explain
violence in general. The social science literature has a wide range of definitions for violence, which
reflects the complexity of the phenomena. This survey of the literature intends to investigate the many
theoretical stances taken by psychology to explain violent behavior, emphasizing the difficulties and
nuances involved in characterizing and comprehending violence.

Problems with Definition in the Study of Violence:

The word "violence" refers to a wide range of actions, including self-injury and suicide as well as acts of
bodily harm to other people. Debates on whether deliberate injury is a too narrow criterion, if threats
should be included, and whether psychological or emotional harm should be considered are reflected in
the literature. Although this definitional discussion may come across as scholarly, it is actually applicable
to those who deal with violent situations in the real world. The review emphasizes the diversity of violent
acts and the significance of a nuanced understanding by presenting situations ranging from acts of
terrorism to domestic abuse.

Reasons and Elements That Lead to Violence:

Research challenges the antiquated "Nature vs. Nurture" dichotomy by showing that violence is a
complex occurrence influenced by a variety of factors. The review refutes the idea that violence is only
determined by innate urges or preconceived psychological and social forces by highlighting the
interaction of biological, social/contextual, cognitive, and emotional elements across time. The
intentionality of the majority of violent crimes is emphasized, highlighting the fact that violence is
deliberate and selected as a course of action. Although there are certain exceptions, including in cases of
brain damage, organized and premeditated violence—especially in relation to terrorism—continues to be
the main focus of attention.
Theoretical Frameworks for Understanding Violence:

The review of the literature looks at several psychological theories that have been used to explain
aggressive conduct. The field has failed to produce a cohesive theory despite attempts to create thorough
explanations. The analysis notes that compared to other behavioral domains with less social ramification,
psychological theory development explaining violence has garnered less attention and advancement.

1. Biological Factors: The biological viewpoint investigates how a person's neurochemistry, brain
anatomy, and genetic makeup may predispose them to violent conduct. The review highlights the
necessity for an integrated strategy that takes into account the interaction of biological
components with social, cognitive, and emotional dimensions, while also acknowledging the
importance of biological factors.

2. Social and Environmental Factors: Sociological theories emphasize how family dynamics,
cultural norms, socioeconomic conditions, and societal conditions all have a role in the
development of violent conduct. The review highlights how critical it is to understand the
intricate interactions between environmental and personal factors that shape violent tendencies.

3. Cognitive and Emotional Factors: Cognitive theories explore how emotions, attitudes, and mental
processes affect violent conduct. The review highlights how important it is to comprehend how
cognitive distortions, impulsivity, and emotional dysregulation contribute to the decision-making
processes that lead to violent acts.

4. Goal-Directed Behavior: The review addresses ideas that emphasize the goal-directed character
of violent behavior while acknowledging that violence is a deliberate and purposeful action. It
contends that in order to understand the reasons driving a person's decision to use violence, one
must first understand the intended results for the actor.

This literature review concludes by highlighting the difficulties in categorizing violence and examining its
complex character. It emphasizes how crucial it is to take into account a wide range of variables while
attempting to comprehend violent conduct, including biological, social, cognitive, and emotional
components. Although a variety of psychological theories have been used to explain violence, the review
recognizes the continued complexity in this field of study and the lack of a unifying explanation. This
basic knowledge paves the way for a deeper investigation of the psychological theories particularly
connected to terrorism.

Objectives:
 1. To examine the Connection Between Mental Illness and Mass Violence.
2. To distinguish Between Individual and Group Terrorists.
3. To examine the Social Factors that Influence Radicalization.
4. To address stigma and public opinion.
5. To determine the Risk Factors for Mass Violence.

Methodology:

2.1 Review of the Literature and Search Approach

A thorough examination of the literature was carried out utilizing many key databases, such as Health
Source: Nursing/Academic Edition, ERIC, and MEDLINE/Pubmed. The period covered by the search
was April 8, 2018, to the date these databases were created. A combination of terms associated with
mental health and terrorism, including "psychiatr*," "psychosis," "delusion," "schizophr*," "terrorism,"
"extremism," and others, were used in the search method. The search was conducted by two impartial
reviewers, and any disagreements were discussed and settled with a third reviewer. Original research
examining mental health aspects connected to radicalization resistance or proneness, case studies
examining the mental health of mass violence perpetrators, and English-language articles were among the
inclusion criteria. Studies concentrating only on the mental health effects of acts of mass violence, case
reports, non-original publications, and publications in languages other than English.

2.2 Extracting Data and Evaluating Quality

The sample size, participant demographics, study design, instruments for assessing mental health, and key
conclusions were taken from the original studies. Information about early indicators of radicalization, acts
of mass violence, membership in terrorist groups, and mental diagnoses were documented in the case
reports. The SIGN grading system (1999–2012) was used for quality assessment, which divided the
evidence into several levels according to the risk of bias and the research design. The analysis was certain
to contain high-caliber literature because to this methodical technique.

2.3 Terrorism Definition

As "acts of violence intentionally perpetrated on civilian non-combatants with the goal of furthering some
ideological, religious, or political objective," terrorism was defined, primarily focusing on non-state
actors.

2.4 A Search Methodology for Terrorism-Related Social Science Literature

A comprehensive search was carried out in major academic databases, such as PsychInfo, Medline, Public
Affairs Information Service, Criminal Justice Abstracts, National Criminal Justice Reference Service
Abstracts, Sociofile/Sociological Abstracts, Criminal Justice Abstracts, and Criminal Justice Periodical
Index, to find pertinent social science literature. The search focused on finding professional social science
literature on the behavioral and psychological aspects of terrorist activity that was published in scholarly
journals or large-scale books. When possible, the search strategy was mapped onto already-existing
subject headings using an iterative keyword method.

2.5 Expert Opinion

Drs. Martha Crenshaw, John Horgan, and Andrew Silke, three prominent academic consultants on the
project, were asked for their opinions regarding inclusion or deletion after the first list of citations was
cross-checked against significant review publications. The relevance of the chosen citations for the
analysis was guaranteed by this procedure. The foundation for a thorough investigation of the
psychological aspects of terrorism is laid by this exacting methodology, which complies with PRISMA
and SIGN principles and integrates ideas from the literature on social science and mental health.

Psych Info Medline CJPI NCJRS Abstracts PAIS SocioFile

Terrorism 50

Terror* (kw) 844 1353 N/A N/A 2115

Terror* (kw) &

Mindset 1 (0) 0 4(0) Boolean 33 (0) 10 (0) 2 (0)

Terror* (kw) &

Psych* (kw) N/A 428 141 N/A N/A N/A

Terrorism and

Mindset N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 N/A N/A

Psychology (Sub)

& Terror*(kw) 50 17 (0) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Psychology (Sub)

& Terrorism (Sub) 35 11 (0) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Psychology &

Terrorism N/A N/A N/A Boolean 154 (0) 14 23 28

Political Violence

(kw) 55 764(0) 89 (0) Boolean 19 50 N/A N/A

Political Violence

(kw) & Psychology N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 10 (0) 149

Numbers= Total results

N/A= Search Term

Unnecessary (0) =No items were kept from the results

kw=keyword

Conclusion:
In the realm of understanding violent behavior, no single theory has emerged as a comprehensive
explanatory model for all types of violence. The diversity in behaviors classified as violent poses inherent
challenges to formulating a global theory. While social learning and social cognition approaches have
garnered extensive empirical attention, particularly in the context of interpersonal violence, their
application to terrorism has not been as straightforward. Terrorism, characterized by deliberate, strategic,
and instrumental violence linked to ideological objectives, involves a complexity that hinders the
development of a unifying explanatory theory. Because terrorist violence is sometimes motivated by
political or religious ideas, developing a complete theory is made even more difficult. What distinguishes
terrorism from spontaneous acts of violence is its deliberate and purposeful nature. Furthermore, the
group dynamic that underlies terrorism adds complexity that isn't always apparent in isolated acts of
violence. The development of an all-encompassing explanatory framework is further hampered by the
strategic nature of terrorist acts, which are justified by ideological reasons.

Reviewing psychological ideas is a useful way to gain a wider knowledge of violence, but a more
nuanced approach is needed to explain terrorism. It is not possible to identify psychopathology or
personality features on their own as a reliable predictor of radicalization in people. According to the
literature review, there is insufficient data to develop a set profile of mental health traits linked to
radicalization propensity. Studies that link mental health to radicalization should be interpreted cautiously
because many of them are cross-sectional and cannot prove a cause-and-effect relationship. The analysis
is made more complex by the differences in the stages of radicalization, which range from the formation
of extreme beliefs to actual engagement. The methodological difficulties are exacerbated by the disparity
in radicalization metrics employed and the dearth of standardized mental health assessment instruments.
There is conflicting research that points to a possible connection between radicalization propensity and
depressed symptoms. There are a number of variables that could impact the relationship between
radicalization and depression, such as social isolation, unfavorable life experiences, and the possibility of
violent results. Interestingly, lone actors—who are frequently socially isolated—may have greater
incidence of some mental problems than do group terrorists and the general public. The differentiation
between lone actors and group terrorists prompts inquiries regarding the diversity amongst radicalized
persons. Recent data points to the possibility that lone actors—especially those driven by single-issue
ideologies—may have greater prevalence of mental illnesses. But constraints like methodological
heterogeneity and sample representativeness highlight the need for more research.
Radicalization propensity has been linked to personality qualities like limited empathy, group
identification, and identity fusion. These characteristics cast doubt on the notion that radicalization is the
result of mental illness by showing that radicalized people are capable of self-awareness, critical thought,
and decision-making. In conclusion, many obstacles still exist even though the literature study offers
insightful information about the intricate connection between radicalization and mental health. The
difficulty in placing terrorism in the larger context of violent behavior is highlighted by the lack of a
cohesive explanatory theory. More study in this area is needed to address methodological issues,
investigate the moderating or mediating impacts of mental health issues, and take into account the larger
social, cultural, and political elements that influence radicalization. It is still difficult to translate these
findings into clinical treatment, which highlights the continued need for interdisciplinary cooperation and
a sophisticated comprehension of the complex nature of terrorism.