Motivation and emotion/Book/2023/Violent extremism motivation

Overview
This page contains content that some may find distressing, including discussion of violence, physical and emotional abuse and trauma.



David is profoundly dedicated to protecting the environment. For some time he has engaged in environmentally friendly behaviours such as recycling and riding his bike, and often encourages his lifestyle among his friends and colleagues. He believes that his one reason for being on this earth is to advocate for the natural environment and has sought out the company of others who share his belief. The destruction of the natural resources in his area angers him, and he feels that he is no longer in control of a cause that once gave him purpose. His fellow eco-warriors feel a similar anger, especially towards the government that has pushed for industrial development responsible for the destruction of natural land and the killing of much wildlife.

David no longer sees his old friends and spends most of his time devising ways to interrupt government interference, such as slashing the tires of oil tank vehicles or attempting to free animals from the local zoo. David once feared the consequences of disobeying local law, but his "friends" have convinced him that hindering the new factory development is the only way his goal of protecting nature will be realised. He is ready to destroy the building in any way that is necessary, regardless of who or what will be destroyed in the process, and will continue his pursuit even if it means he dies for the cause!



The overwhelming need to relate to others and feel in control of ones' life may see an individual engage in certain behaviours that do not align with norms of conventional society, with some people satisfying these needs through engagement in acts such as protests or terrorism. This engagement is not an all-or-nothing phenomenon but rather occurs along a spectrum, with engagement in this behaviour appearing deviant at first (e.g., assault, vandalism), possibly leading to more radical viewpoints or behaviour and then, in the unlikely case, violent extremism.

Motivational theorists have suggested various explanations for why some people engage in extreme violent acts, with some individuals being driven to meet basic psychological needs of autonomy, competence and relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 2000), while others are driven by the need to affirm their identity within social groups and establishing a sense of meaning in a world filled with uncertainty (Hogg, 2014; Kruglanski, 2014).

Understanding why people engage in violent extremism is crucial in developing effective intervention and prevention strategies to ensure the protection of the community and natural resources (as seen in figure 1), addressing economic concerns as well as ensuring vulnerable individuals are provided with appropriate support to meet core motivational needs to abate feelings of isolation and uncertainty.

Focus questions


 * 1) What is extremism, and how does it turn violent?
 * 2) What motivates a person to engage in violent extremism?
 * 3) Why is it important to understand the motivation behind extremist ideology?

What is extremism?


Behind most behaviour lies the inherent need to satisfy basic needs and maintain homeostasis, ensuring effective daily functioning across various domains, biologically, cognitively, and socially. This motivational balance is sometimes disrupted, causing certain needs to become more dominant and salient in the person’s mind. Consequently, other needs are overlooked, and the motivation to maintain a certain behaviour reaches extreme levels (Kruglanski et al., 2021a). For example, an individual aspiring to lose weight may obsess over their calorie intake and engage in extreme eating behaviours to reach weight loss goals (Kruglanski et al., 2021b) while also sacrificing other needs crucial to functioning, such as engaging in once enjoyable behaviours (Schumpe et al., 2018 as cited in Kruglanski et al., 2021b). In principle, all behaviour can turn extreme, but the motivation behind this extremist behaviour varies depending on the perceived outcome.

Violent extremism
The shift from extreme behaviour to violent extremism is quite rare and does not happen suddenly, with people often exhibiting more ‘radical’ behaviour across various domains, such as changes in social relationships, shifts in ideology, as well as an increase in criminal behaviour (Living Safe Together, 2015). In the case of ‘David’, he steered away from socially acceptable behaviours by engaging in more radical environmental behaviour, such as slashing tires, as well as neglecting relationships in favour of new peers who align with a more radicalised ideology. ‘David’ eventually believes engaging in violent acts is the only way to meet his goals, and as such, he is prepared to engage in violent extremism. The Australian Government posits that violent extremism appears differently depending on the desired end goal and presents three prominent forms: Issue-based, separatist, and ideological (Living Safe Together, 2015).

Issue-based violent extremism
Issue-based violent extremism is often used to bring attention to a certain issue and does not usually end in violence that harms others. For example, the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) is an extremist group that protests against acts of animal cruelty and has been known to engage in acts of violence such as destruction of property.

Separatist extremism
Separatist extremism is linked to political separation in which groups strive for independence and to form their own government. Tamil Tigers is one such separatist militant organisation that used to operate in Sri Lanka. They had over 18,000 members and consistently engaged in violent extremist acts as rebellion.

Ideological violent extremism
Ideological violent extremism is often related to extreme nationalist groups engaging in violent acts to demonstrate superiority over groups or push racist ideologies, such as the Ku Klux Klan. Ideological extremism can also be motivated by religious beliefs, such as al-Qaeda, a militant organisation that strives for an international Jihad. Al Shabaab is another prevalent militant group that engages in violent extremist acts (see Figure 2) in the hopes of establishing a fundamentalist Islamic state.



{What type of violent extremism is David engaging in? + Issue-based violent extremism - Separatist extremism - Ideological violent extremism
 * type=""}
 * David is indeed engaging in issue-based violent extremism as he is more focused on protecting the environment, and while this form of extremism does not often turn violent, in David's case, his engagement has reached such extreme levels that he perceives violence to be the only logical next step in protecting the environment
 * This is incorrect, David's extremism is not politically motivated, and he does not seek to form a governing body that aligns with his views
 * This is incorrect. David and his fellow eco-warriors are not striving for power or superiority; they are more interested in protecting natural resources.

Motivational theories of violent extremism
 David's progression from engaging in socially acceptable environmental behaviours to more radicalised views and ultimately to violent extremist acts in meeting an end goal is apparent, but why has such a shift occurred? Is his desire to protect the environment the sole reason for his engagement in such violent acts, or could other motivational forces be at play?

Understanding why people engage in extreme violent acts has been of much interest to social psychology and motivational researchers, as early intervention rests on the ability to counteract negative circumstances that may increase the chance of someone moving from the radicalisation stage to violent extremism (Living Safe Together, 2015). Push and pull factors, which involve the influence of society and social groups on an individual, are the most commonly discussed in violent extremism research, with theorists suggesting that push (e.g., discrimination, limited education) and pull factors (e.g., propaganda, financial incentives) may indicate who is most as risk of being lured in by extremist groups (Vergani et al., 2020). While beneficial in developing intervention strategies, this approach fails to understand how internal or external motivation influences this pathway to extremism.

Motivational balance
In the process of meeting basic needs, especially regarding moderate behaviours, people will often avoid satisfying one need if it undermines another (Kruglanski et al., 2017). For instance, a person seeking social validation or connectedness may consider heavy drug use to meet peer expectations but, after consideration, would likely not engage in the extreme act due to the negative effect it would have on their health and the possible consequences of breaking the law. But, for some individuals, certain needs become more salient and suppress other needs.

Research on extremist groups has found that autonomy and relatedness are two critical motivating factors that predict the level of commitment to a cause. One study found autonomy to be indicative of engagement in violent extremism, especially when an individual feels oppressed and is motivated to regain control (Briki, 2021).

Research by Badurdeen (2020) examined the motivation of women who voluntarily engaged in terrorist networks, most notably the militant group Al-Shabaab. Many of these women were motivated to regain their autonomy which strongly aligned with the gender norms common to their culture, such as being a good wife and being subservient. These findings are interesting, as their perception of autonomy differs greatly from Western perceptions and highlights the influence of propaganda material by terrorist networks. Other reports from female volunteers highlighted strong motives for revenge, which were heavily emphasised in propaganda material that encouraged extremist acts to avenge the wronging of male loved ones. Mobilising these women to seek revenge as a way to regain autonomy gave them a sense of purpose and meaning. It can be suggested that the propaganda material common to these violent extremist groups influences motivational balance, with the salience of certain needs, such as being autonomous, outweighing other important needs related to security and protection.

Significance quest theory


Critical to a person's identity is the desire to matter and to live a meaningful existence, and as such, when this need for significance is overwhelmingly strong, a person may engage in extreme behaviours to achieve this need. Kruglanski and colleagues (2018) have proposed the Significance Quest Theory, which asserts that when a person feels a loss of significance, they engage in extreme behaviours to regain feelings of significance.

Instances in which significance is lost may include humiliation or rejection, as well as unfair treatment and a loss of control. One such example is Tamerlan Tsarnaev, one of the perpetrators responsible for the Boston Marathon bombing in 2013, resulting in the death of three people (see Figure 3). Kruglanski and colleagues (2014) posited that Tamerlan's life circumstances: his inability to assimilate to American culture, his family instability, job insecurity and his dependence on his wife may have led to his desire to regain feelings of significance by becoming a martyr. These authors further posited that political and economic instability plays a role in feelings of helplessness that, in turn, increase the desire for meaning.

It has also been suggested that regaining a sense of certainty is critical, with some individuals turning to extremist behaviours to feel in control of what will happen next. Webber and colleagues (2017) found among a group of Islamic militants who engaged in terrorist acts such as kidnapping, bombing, and rape in creating an independent Islamic state that adhering to ideological norms provided them with a world of certainty, counteracting perceived humiliation. The Significance Quest Theory consists of three distinct components: need, narrative, and network, that work together in affirming a person's identity and reestablishing a sense of significance.

Kruglanski and colleagues (2023) further developed this idea by suggesting that searching for significance is not only about belonging and acceptance but also concerns engagement in behaviour that is deemed praiseworthy according to the narrative legitimised by the ingroup. For some groups, emphasising power and dominance may inform the type of behaviour perceived as legitimate.

Meaning Maintenance Model

This model builds upon the Quest for Significance theory by suggesting that in circumstances in which significance is threatened, either by real or perceived forces, people are motivated to ease this discomfort by biasing their attention or perceiving their ingroup as morally acceptable (Mohamed et al., 2017). These authors suggest that this process sees violent extremists inflating their sense of power and tend to perceive themselves as invulnerable to the risk and see violent behaviour as a thrill-seeking endeavour rather than dangerous.

 David may see his actions as an effective way to regain a sense of significance and control in the face of continuous government interference that threatens his and his group's goal of preserving nature and protecting wildlife.

Uncertainty Identity Theory
Adhering to a system of beliefs can also strengthen one's identity and feeling of belonging to a social group. It is suggested that in the face of uncertainty, groups that promote violent extreme acts or align with certain ideologies guide how a person is to think and behave, which in turn, reduces this uncertainty (Hogg, 2014).

Hogg and colleagues (2014) further suggest that self-uncertainty may motivate people to identify with social groups, particularly those that can assist in the development of a more distinct identity and a more salient group prototype that removes all of the guesswork in how one should operate in society.

An earlier study by Hogg and Adelman (2013) found that among Palestinian Muslims and Israeli Jews, national identity, as well as norms of power and dominance encouraged by leaders, was indicative of how supportive they were of suicide bombing or military action. They suggested that compliance with norms is strongly associated with wanting to counteract feelings of uncertainty. It has been suggested that leaders take advantage of these feelings of uncertainty and capitalise on communal fears to increase the loyalty of followers and mobilise support to commit violent acts (Kelman, 2007, as cited in Kadayifci-Orellana, 2019).



{Joe is feeling overwhelmed by the ever-changing world around him. He feels that his current friends do not understand his mission to stop the cruelty of animals in any way necessary, and he is in need of more guidance on what his next steps should be to meet his goal. Considering just this little snippet of Joe. What theory of motivation may explain his current feeling of doubt? - Motivational balance - Significance Quest Theory + Uncertainty Identity Theory
 * type=""}
 * This is incorrect. Just considering this snippet, for this theory to apply, David would need to display a more unbalanced motivational pull toward one particular need, e.g., a need to be autonomous.
 * This is incorrect, as the snippet does not suggest a search for meaning.
 * This is correct! Based on the little information provided, Joe is in need of a more concrete identity that he may obtain by finding a new social group that aligns with his goals and offers a more predictable way of behaving based on group norms.

Preventing violent extremism
Understanding how these motivational theories may influence the pathway from radicalisation to violent extremism has been applied to intervention strategy development. The Living Safe Together initiative (2015) implemented by the Australian Government is one such attempt to provide the public with useful information in identifying possible engagement in radicalisation and violent extremism and offer suggestions on steps to support family or friends believed to be on this path. Methods proposed to be effective are drawn from the tenets of the self-determination theory, which posits that our innate psychological need to relate to others, be autonomous and feel competent in one's abilities may drive engagement in behaviour (Deci & Ryan, 2000). The Living Safe Together initiative (2015) suggests that finding an 'at-risk' individual more productive and positive social groups that offers guidance may allow them to secure a group identity that helps meet their need to relate to others and feel certain in their actions. Another critical component stressed by this initiative is to help develop critical thinking skills that question the validity of claims of social groups rather than accepting claims to be true without proper evidence.

Stahl and colleagues (2021) conducted a qualitative study within Australian schools to examine whether the current approach to violent extremism intervention is effective or even applicable to the current population, especially children. They examined the use of restorative justice practices that emphasise the process of providing wrongdoers with an opportunity to identify their negative behaviour or actions and develop proactive strategies to overcome socioeconomic and educational barriers. This study suggested that the most significant precursor to radicalisation is isolation, with children seeking alternative pathways to meet the motivational need of relatedness. These authors suggest that preventative strategies should incorporate restorative justice practices as well as building resilience through critical awareness of diverse groups and developing tolerance.

Gaps in research

Current research in this field emphasises heavily on push and pull factors of society on the individual, with more research needing to examine what the individual is seeking to gain from society, through meeting motivational needs of autonomy, competence and relatedness. Another future consideration is the need to engage in more practical research that examines relevant motivations behind engagement in radicalisation and possible violent extremism in an Australian context, especially in schools and workplaces.

Conclusion
Driving factors leading a person along the path of radicalisation to then engage in violent extremism is an important area of research for social psychologists, because the implications are highly detrimental to the safety and protection of the community. Understanding the motivation to meet basic psychological needs of autonomy, competence and relatedness in conjunction with obtaining a meaningful and certain social identity may provide governing bodies the chance to implement prevention and intervention strategies that reduce the risk of engagement in extreme violent acts, such as terrorism. These strategies would ensure that people are given the chance to obtain meaning through more positive and productive avenues, as well as identify with social groups that emphasise non violent ways of meeting personal and group goals.