This document contains feedback from a professor on a student's essay about social psychological explanations of terrorism. The professor provides an overall positive review, praising the wide range of integrated sources and critical analysis. They encourage the student to continue their critical stance and use of contemporary sources. The provisional grade is High Distinction. The document also includes the grading matrix used to evaluate the essay, assessing learning outcomes such as applying social psychology to real world events and demonstrating understanding of key topics.

1. NOTTINGHAMTRENT UNIVERSITY
TERRORISM: THE PROCESS OF
BECOMING INHUMANE
“CRITICALLY EVALUATE THE EXTENT TO WHICH SOCIAL
PSYCHOLOGY OFFERS AN EXPLANATION OF REAL WORLD
TOPICS.”

2. 1 | P a g e
N0433929
TERRORISM: THE PROCESS OF BECOMING INHUMANE
Overall, an excellent essay on the social psychological explanations of terrorism.
You have included a wide range of material and have integrated sources that
extend beyond the module content. You have also shown a clear critical
awareness to the material that you have presented and have thought about how
the evaluation points that you present impact on the broader argument.
In future assignments, I would encourage you to continue with your critical
stance in your writing and also continue to use a wide range of contemporary
sources as you will receive credit for both of these.-
Provisional grade = High distinction
If you have any questions about my feedback do get in touch
Best wishes,
Lucy

3. 2 | P a g e
N0433929
TERRORISM: THE PROCESS OF BECOMING INHUMANE
Grading Matrix
Assessed learning
outcomes
Distinction Commendation Pass Fail
Apply social
psychological
principles to account
for and explain real
world events.
Excellent knowledge and
understanding of how social
psychological principles,
theories, and research can be
applied.
Very good knowledge and
understanding of how social
psychological principles,
theories, and research can be
applied.
Good knowledge and
understanding of how social
psychological principles, theories,
and research can be applied.
Limited knowledge and
understanding of how
social psychology can
be applied.
Demonstrate an
awareness and
understanding of key
social psychological
topics.
Provides sophisticated,
thoughtful, and original critical
reflection of social
psychological topics.
Provides appropriate critical
reflection some of which may
be based on other authors’
arguments.
Provides limited critical reflection
which may tend towards the
descriptive and/or general to the
area.
Limited, inappropriate,
or no critical reflection.
Appraise psychological
evidence and relate it
to levels of
explanation within
social psychology.
Explanations are thoughtful,
insightful, and evidence based
that extend well beyond the
taught material.
Explanations are thoughtful
and go somewhat beyond the
taught material.
Explanations are somewhat
limited in range and depth which
tend to be based on taught
material.
Fails to make links to
social psychology
theories.
Appraise primary
research papers and
evaluate psychological
evidence.
Excellent synthesis of evidence
with extraction of salient points
from a wide range of
contemporary primary sources
(journal articles).
Very good synthesis of
evidence with some salient
points extracted from some
contemporary sources
(journal articles). Some
reliance on set texts.
Good synthesis of evidence with
few salient points extracted from
some contemporary sources
(journal articles). Over reliance
on set texts.
Limited or lacking
synthesis of evidence.
Limited range of
resources.
Be able to
communicate this
knowledge effectively.
Excellent communication skills
evidenced structured
appropriately with clarity of
exposition.
Very good communication
skills evidenced with
appropriate structure.
Although some points may be
communicated in a way which
shows some clarity, the structure
may not always be coherent.
Limited
communication skills.

4. 3 | P a g e
N0433929
TERRORISM: THE PROCESS OF BECOMING INHUMANE
Please note: The above matrix is not a ‘grade calculator’ but simply a feedback table to convey the strengths and challenges of your work

5. Terrorismisstatedto be one of the oldestformsof human conflict.Before sucheventsasworld
wars,individualsandsmall groups engagedin actsof terror to achieve political objectives and
rebellion againstexistingleaders. Asof now,terrorismstillremains afixture of humanrelationsas
an old-fashionedway of achievingobjectives (De laCorte,2007). Asthere are numerousforms,
there isno single universally accepted definitionof terrorism. Terrorismisdefinedinthe Code of
Federal Regulationsas“the unlawful use of force andviolence againstpersonsorpropertyto
intimidate orcoerce agovernment,the civilianpopulation,orany segmentthereof,infurtheranceof
political orsocial objectives.”(C.F.R,2002).
As expressedabove itisdifficulttoexpress terrorismwithone definition,itisalsodifficult toprovide
a clear argumenttowhat drivesindividualsinto terrorism. MarthaCrenshaw and JohnHorgan have
bothconductednumerousstudieswithinthe psychologyof terrorismandwillbothbe aconstant
feature throughoutthisessayalongside theoriesof social psychology,withthe intentionof providing
analytical arguments towhyindividualsbecome involvedinterrorism.
Terroristsare demographicallycharacterisedasyoungmales,frommiddle orprofessionalclassback
grounds (DeAngelis,2009; Victoroff,2009). It was previouslystatedthatis itis due to individual
characteristicstowhyindividuals jointerrorist’sorganisations,thata terroristhas a peculiar
personalitywithclearidentifiable traits(Ozeren,GunesandAl-Badayneh,2007). There have been
studiesthathave attemptedtoanalyse terroristsbytheirpropensity forviciousness oran
incapabilitytocontrol aggressivedesires,butthese were notfoundtobe connectedtothe
personalitytraitsof individualsinterroristgroups (Beck,2003). However, itwasarguedthat “the
mostoutstandingcommoncharacteristicof terroristsistheirnormality”(Crenshaw,1981; 390). This
was supportedby Horgan(2013) whofoundindividuals are more vulnerable toterroristrecruitment
and radicalizationtendedtobe alienated,disenfranchisedandstate tobe victimsof a social
injustice,therefore rulingoutthe influence of individual characteristics. Horgancontinuedtosuggest
that itis more importantto focuson how individuals change asaresultof terroristinvolvementasit

6. 1 | P a g e
N0433929
TERRORISM: THE PROCESS OF BECOMING INHUMANE
revealsimportantinformationaboutthe processesof entry,involvementandleavingorganizations
(Horgan,2013).
To helpunderstandhownormal individualsbecomeinvolvedinterroristsgroups,itisimportantto
identifythatsuchradical behaviourislearned progressively,movingfrom lesstomore extreme
behaviour(Martinezetal.,2008). Furthermore, anindividual canprogressivelybecomemore
extreme asthe groupon a whole becomes more radical.Thiswas demonstrated bythe Russian
terrorist“The People’sWill”inthe nineteenthcentwhere membersof the groupremoved
themselvesfrom alargerrevolutionarymovementdue toitsleadersadvocatingterrorism“The
individualwhohasbecome extremelydependantonthe groupwill move withittonew activity,
withoutnecessarilyhavingmade anindependentchoice”(Crenshaw,1985; 477).
Conformityisatheorythat can be usedtoexplainwhybehaviourscanbe influencedandchanged
once in a group.Conformityisstatedtobe a formof social influence,where anindividual’sopinions,
beliefs,andactionsare changeddue to the social pressures of groupmembers(Mackay,2006). The
followingstudiesbelow outline the effectconformitycanhave onindividualswithinagroup.
Muzar Sheriff (1930) conduct a study that required participants tostate how farthe lighthad moved
aroundas dark room, andfoundthat theirdistance estimateswere influencedbythe estimatesof
others. Confederates of Sheriffs(1930) studywere able toinfluencethe estimatesof the other
participants.However,due torealityconstraints,confederatesinfluence onothersestimateswere
therefore limited. Furthermore,the taskinSerif’sresearch wasstatedtobe ambiguousandthat
there were nocorrect answers.The findings fromthisstudydidshow participantscanbe
manipulatedandgave credibilitytothe ideathathumansare fundamentallyconformists(Packer,
2012).
FollowingonfromSheriff’s(1930) study,SolomonAsch(1955) challengedSheriff’smethodological
and conductedanexperimentusingunambiguoussituationstotestconformityrates. Participants
were positionedinagroupwithnumerousconfederatesandwere askedtoidentifylengthsof

7. 2 | P a g e
N0433929
TERRORISM: THE PROCESS OF BECOMING INHUMANE
vertical lines. Resultsshowedthatparticipantswouldstate anincorrectanswerevenwhenthe
correct answerwasclear,and that individualsconformedastheytrustedthe group'sjudgement
overtheirown.(Brehm,KassinandFein,2002). Inregradesto Sherif’s(1965) studythe methodology
inthisstudyproducedfar more accurate answersfromparticipantsdue tothembeing
unambiguous.Therefore,the resultsfromAsh’s(1955) studyprovidesagreaterexample of
conformitythatindividualswill conformtoagroup norm, evenif the answerswere wrong.
However,there are numerouslimitationstothe Ashes(1955) study.The maincriticismsbeingtime
dependant/consumingandunethical,plusthe findingscannotbe relatedtoreal life eventsdue to
the experimentnotbeing realistic.Furthermore,the studyiswithoutecological validityasthere isa
shortage of experimental realismdue toparticipantsbeingable tofigure outthe experimentorthink
it wasrequiredof themtoanswerthe same as the others,whichthereforesuggeststhe conformity
ratescouldbe unreliable.There isalso alackof mundane realismdue tothe studynotreflectingan
everydaysituation,individualsmayactdifferentwhichwouldaffectthe conformityrate (Lilienfeldet
al.,2014). Ashes’ (1955) studyhowever, dididentifythe domainsinwhichconformityaccountsfor
and the patternsof behaviourwhichhelpsunderstand the psychological mechanismsunderlying
conformity (Packer,2012).
The conformity theoryprovides anexplanation of how individual’sbehaviourcanbe influencedand
changedonce in a group. Eventhoughthe above studies dorelate tothe inhumanacts of terrorist
groups,theydo show however,howindividuals cangoagainsttheirownbeliefsinorderto follow
the group procedure “itisnot aboutthe individual, terrorismisagroupprocess”(Horgan,2014:
105).
Ratesof conformitycanrange on numerousfactors.One factorthat has beenstatedtohave
particularimpacton conformity isculture. A studybySmithand Bond(1996) foundthat lowerrates
of conformitywere foundinthe UKthencomparedtoparticipantsformFiji .Itwassuggestedthat
thiswas due to the culture inthe UK beingmore Individualistic(value personal independence)

8. 3 | P a g e
N0433929
TERRORISM: THE PROCESS OF BECOMING INHUMANE
participantswere lesslikelytoconform,incomparisontoparticipantsfor Fiji whoculture was stated
to be collectivist(societyaccommodatesthe whole group).
Culture can have a fundamental impactonanindividual’sidentity,thinking,perceptions,and
actions.It issuggestedthatculture isan importantfactorinterrorism, as culturesshapesthe
principlesandprovokesindividualstoactionsthatseemunreasonable toothers(Matusitzand
Adams,2013). Asstatedculture can have an impact onthe rate how much individuals conform.It
therefore couldbe suggestedthatindividuals interroristgroups,are more like toconformtothe
restof the group dependingongroup culture.A studyby Jetten,Postmes,andMcAuliffe (2002)
foundthat whenculturesare more collectivistic,conformityishigher.Identificationwiththe group
alsoinfluencesthe amountof conformity.Also,when individuals identifyhighlywiththe group
norm,the rate of conformityisincreasedcompartedto low-identifiers. The views,perceptionsand
actionsof ordinary individuals were profoundlyinfluencedbythe manipulationof culture,inshort,
made terrorismona collectivebasispossible(HorganandBraddock,2011).
Furthermore, there have beencases were membersof terroristgroups have intendedtoleave due
to disagreeingwiththe group norm,buthave feltpressuredtoremain silentdue tofearsof the
consequencesof voicingdissent. Insome instancesthere have been individuals basedwithintourist
groupsand have wantedtoleave butfeltthey couldnotdue to fearof punishment (Horgan,2009).
Thistype of behaviourisreferredtoas punishmentof deviance,whichisstatedtobe an action that
isperceivedtoviolate agroup’ssocial norm(Oswald,BieneckandHupfeld-Heinemann,2009).
Individualsface negativereactionsfromwithinagroupto deviance,particularlyinreligiousand
political contextse.g.terroristgroups,due tosuchgroupsbeingcohesive andvalued.Sowhencore
beliefsare challenged,itposesathreatnotonlyto that particularnorm butalsoto the overall
meaningandviabilityof the group(Packer, 2012).
However,there are rewardsgiventogroupmembersinreturnfortheircommitment. One being
financial,withmuchof itbeingfromransoms paidforthe release of kidnapedvictims(Wilkinson,

9. 4 | P a g e
N0433929
TERRORISM: THE PROCESS OF BECOMING INHUMANE
2015). Otherthan material rewards there are emotional rewardstobe gained, suchassocial
advantagesfromgroupmembership asindividualsinterroristgroups donotlive inthe “real world”
removedfromnormal social contexts withcanproduce disturbedperceptionsof the real world
(Horgan,2014). This then leadstobeingfurtherreinforcedthroughthe “groupthink”,whichis
where individualssetaside theirownpersonal beliefsinordertoadoptthe opinionof the group
(Janis,1972). Everyone mustconformtothe groupthinkinorder forgroup goalsto be reached.
Moreover, anyform of conflictamongstgroupmembers canbe particularlythreateningdue to the
importance of groupcohesion onindividual survival (Bjorgo,andHorgan,2009). A groupwithstrong
cohesionwill dismissanyformof rebellionfromits members,whichtherefore leadstopowerful
pressurestowardconformity;andasIndividualsneed the protectionof the groupagainstthe
outside world itislikelyforthemtoconformratherthanleave the group(Crenshaw,1985).
However,eventhoughitis difficultforindividuals toleavesuchextremegroups,there isresearch
that showsmembershave beenable toleave terroristgroupsstatingthatthe dropoutswere
“ambivalentonjoining,neverfullyresolvedtheirdoubts,andincreasingquestionedthe espoused
goalsof the groupand whetherthe groups actionsactually servedthose goals”(Post,1985;11).
As alreadystatedabove the behaviour of individualscanchange once inradical terrorist groups.
Researchhasshownthat leadersof groups can manipulate the behaviourof itsmembers toadopt
certainrolesinthe form of obedience toauthority.Obedience occurswhenanindividualacquiesces
to the order of an authorityfigure,changingtheirviews,feelings,orbehaviour (Packer,2012).
Milgram’s(1974) studiesof obedience canbe usedtohelpunderstand individual’s escalationof
violence interrorists groups. A famousstudybyMilgram(1974) foundthat ordinaryindividualsin
the role of the leaner,wouldobeyordersto inflectpaintoanother,inthe role of a victim, if askedto
do so byan authorityfigure.The role of the learnerinthisstudywouldincrease the levelof pain
towardsthe so calledvictim,thisprovidesanexampleof how normal individualscan escalate in
extreme behaviours byfollowingof instructionsfromauthority figures(Perry,2013).

10. 5 | P a g e
N0433929
TERRORISM: THE PROCESS OF BECOMING INHUMANE
Milgramsuggeststhat “agenticshift”explainswhyIndividualsare able toconductunhumanactions.
Thisis where individualsseesthemselvesasinstruments forimplementingthe requestsfrom
authorityfiguresandthattheyare notliable fortheiractionsas theyare justfollowingorders
(Milgram,1974).
However,participants inMilgram’s(1974) study were providedwithademonstration of increasing
the level of pain,therefore itissuggestedthatindividuals hadnoreasonnotto inflictlow levelsof
pain,howeveronce the processof inflictingpainbeganitbecomesdifficulttostop (Nissani,1990).
Thistype of behaviourisreferredtoas gradual commitment,thatonce anindividual makesaform
of commitmentitbecomesdifficulttogetout of it and that theybecome lockedintoobedience in
small steps(Perry, 2013). The findingsfromMilgram’s(1963) studysupportsthis,asit demonstrates
that small level of obedience andincreasinginsmall stagesmakesitdifficultforanindividual to
disobey(Nissani,1990). Furthermore,ithasbeenarguedthatlessgradual levelsof painescalation
wouldleadtoreducedobedience (Packer,2012), whichwasthe case inHarrisonand Pepitone’s
(1972) studybut it didnot provide evidence concerningthe effectof manipulating the gradations
withinagivenrange.Moreover,dehumanisation cansometimesoccur,whichiswhen Individuals
inflictmore harmto othersif theydistance themselvesfromthe victim, this happens whenmembers
of terroristgroups are removedof theirindividuality(Stout, 2004).Modern militariesuse similar
techniquesbytakingawaysoldier’sindividualityandreplacingitwiththe goalsof the group
(McCauleyandMoskalenko,2011). Finally,Milgram’s(1974) studiesof obedience providesan
example of howindividualscandevelopextreme behavioursinterroristgroups.Tothe extentof the
groupssocial influencebeingused topressure membersintoescalatingtheirbehaviourina more
extreme fashion,whichis thenpromotedandsupportedbyindividual self-justification(Hudson,
2010).
On reflection,whatisknownaboutterroristsinregradestoindividuals andasgroups,it seemsthat
terrorismitsself itmore aboutgroup dynamicsratherthanthe individuals. Thisessayfirstlyoutlined

11. 6 | P a g e
N0433929
TERRORISM: THE PROCESS OF BECOMING INHUMANE
reasonswhyindividuals maybecome involvedinterrorism, whichleadtothe ideathatitis not
aboutwhy individual’sturnbuthowtheyturn,and whatstrategies recruitersuse inthatprocess
(Horgan,2016). This therefore ledtothe analysis of the conformitytheory whichdisplayedhow
individual’s behaviourcan be infiltrated bynotonlythe beliefsof othergroupmembers butalso
social factorssuch as culture,punishmentandreward.The theoryof obedience toauthoritywas
thenintroduced toillustrate otheraspectsof terroristbehavioursuchasthe escalationof violence in
terroristsgroups,withMilgram’s studiesdemonstrating the influence hierarchical figures have on
such behaviour.Tofurtherthe understandingof terrorismitisimportanttotake othersocial
psychology theoriesintoconsiderationsuchasminorityinfluence,moral developmentand
leadership.Overall,the evaluationof social psychologytheoriesusedinthisessayhasprovide an
explanationtoareal worldtopicsuch as terrorism,andhas also furtherstrengthened the argument
of perviousresearchinthe psychologyof terrorism that"itisclearthat terrorismisa groupprocess"
(Horgan,2014; 105).
Words: 2366
Asch,S. (1955). OpinionsandSocial Pressure.Sci Am, 193(5), pp.31-35.
Beck,U. (2003). The Silence of Words:OnTerror and War. SecurityDialogue,32(2),pp.255 - 267.
Bjorgo,T. and Horgan, J.(2009). LeavingTerrorismBehind:Individual andCollective Disengagement.
London:Routledge.
Bond,R. and Smith,P.(1996). Culture andconformity:A meta-analysisof studiesusingAsch's
(1952b, 1956) line judgmenttask. Psychological Bulletin,119(1),pp.111 - 137.
Brehm,S.,Kassin,S.and Fein,S.(2002). Social psychology.Boston:HoughtonMifflin.
C.F.R,(2002). Code of Federal Regulations(CFR).[online] Treasury.gov.Availableat:
https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Pages/CFR-links.aspx[Accessed20Dec. 2015].

12. 7 | P a g e
N0433929
TERRORISM: THE PROCESS OF BECOMING INHUMANE
Crenshaw,M.(1981). The Causesof Terrorism.Comparative Politics,13(4),pp.379-399.
Crenshaw,M.(1985). AN ORGANIZATIONALAPPROACHTOTHE ANALYSISOF POLITICALTERRORISM.
EBSCO Host,29(3), pp.465 - 489.
De laCorte,L. (2007). ExplainingTerrorism:A Psychosocial Approach.TerrorismResearchInitiative,
1(2), pp.44 - 61.
DeAngelis,T.(2009). Understandingterrorism.AmericanPsychologyAssociation,40(10),p.60.
Harrison,M. andPepitone,A.(1972).Contrasteffectinthe use of punishment.Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology,23(8),pp.136 - 141.
Horgan, J.(2009). Walkingawayfromterrorism.London:Routledge.
Horgan, J.(2013). Dividedwe stand.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Horgan, J.(2014). The Psychologyof Terrorism.2nded.London:Routledge.
Horgan, J.and Braddock,K. (2011). Terrorismstudies.MiltonPark,Abingdon,Oxon:Routledge.
Horgan, J.(2016). Can Science Solve Terrorism?Q&A withPsychologistJohnHorgan.[online]
ScientificAmericanBlogNetwork.Available at:http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/can-
science-solve-terrorism-q-amp-a-with-psychologist-john-horgan/[Accessed7Jan.2016].
Hudson,R. (2010). Sociologyandpsychologyof terrorism.Hauppauge,N.Y.:NovaScience
Publishers.
Janis,I.(1972). Victimsof groupthink.Boston:Houghton,Mifflin.
Jetten,J.,Postmes,T.andMcAuliffe,B.(2002).?We'reall individuals?:groupnormsof individualism
and collectivism, levelsof identificationandidentitythreat.EuropeanJournal of Social Psychology,
32(2), pp.189-207.

13. 8 | P a g e
N0433929
TERRORISM: THE PROCESS OF BECOMING INHUMANE
Lilienfeld,S.,JayLynn,S.,Namy,L., Woolf,N.,Jamieson,G.,Marks,A. and Slaughter,V.(2014).
Psychology:FromInquirytoUnderstanding.Melbourne:PearsonEducation,p.545.
Mackay, C. (2006). Extraordinarypopulardelusionsandthe madnessof crowds.Petersfield,
Hampshire:HarrimanHouse Ltd.
Martinez,V.,Simari,G.,Sliva,A.andSubrahmanian,V.(2008). CONVEX:Similarity-BasedAlgorithms
for ForecastingGroupBehavior.IEEEIntell.Syst.,23(4),pp.51-57.
Matusitz,J. andAdams,S. (2013). HowCulture ShapesTerrorism.UnitingWesternCivilizationfor
FreedomandLiberty,9(2),pp.216 - 224.
McCauley,C.and Moskalenko,S.(2011). Friction.Oxford:OxfordUniv.Press.
Milgram,S. (1974). Obedience toauthority.New York:Harper& Row.
Nissani,M.(1990). A cognitive reinterpretationof StanleyMilgram'sobservationsonobedience to
authority. AmericanPsychologist,45(12),pp.1384-1385.
Oswald,M.,Bieneck,S.andHupfeld-Heinemann,J.(2009). Social psychologyof punishmentof
crime.Chichester,UK:Wiley.
Ozeren,S.,Gunes,I.and Al-Badayneh,D.(2007). Understandingterrorism.Amsterdam:IOSPress.
Packer,D. (2012). ConformityandObedience.Encyclopediaof HumanBehavior,12(2),pp.580 - 588.
Perry,G. (2013). Behindthe shockmachine.New York:New Press.
Post,J. (1985). Hostilité,conformité,fraternité:the groupdynamicsof terroristbehavior.
International Journal of GroupPsychotherapy,36(2),pp.211 - 224.
Sherif,M.(1930). The psychologyof social norms.New York:Harper & Row.
Stout,C. (2004). Psychologyof terrorism.Westport,Conn.:PraegerPublishers.
Victoroff,J.(2009). Psychologyof terrorism.New York:PsychologyPress.

14. 9 | P a g e
N0433929
TERRORISM: THE PROCESS OF BECOMING INHUMANE