Speaking of Psychology - Bonus Episode: After New Zealand - The Spread of Extremism in the Digital Age

Episode Date: March 21, 2019

In the aftermath of the New Zealand mosque attacks, we explore the psychological factors that cause a person to commit heinous acts of mass violence, technology’s role in spreading extremist propaganda and what governments and communities can do to prevent terrorism. The guest for this episode is Arie W. Kruglanski, PhD, an APA fellow and distinguished university professor in psychology at the University of Maryland, who is an expert on terrorism, radicalization and deradicalization. APA is currently seeking proposals for APA 2020 sessions, learn more at http://convention.apa.org/proposals Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to Speaking of Psychology, a podcast from the American Psychological Association. I'm your host, Caitlin Luna. We're doing another bonus episode this week on terrorism in the aftermath of the New Zealand mosque attacks. We'll be exploring what psychological factors cause a person to commit heinous acts of mass violence, technology's role in spreading extremist propaganda, and what governments and communities can do to prevent acts of terrorism. Our guest is Dr. Ari Krooglansky, an APA fellow and distinguished university professor in psychology at the University of Maryland.

He's an expert on terrorism, radicalization, and de-radicalization. Welcome, Dr. Kuglansky. Good to be here, Kately. I first want to start off with New Zealand. These attacks were clearly designed to go viral because the suspect wore a camera on his head to live streaming on Facebook. And since that time, the video is spread across countless social media platforms, despite on efforts to delete copies. How have the internet and social media change the dynamics of terrorist groups or lone actor terrorists? I think it provided a much wider audience that was ever possible. You know, a very famous terrorism expert, Brian Jenkins, once quipped that terrorists want a lot of people watching, not a lot of people dead, because they want the impact of the publicity,

significance that it accords them. And the social media, the internet technology, allows the publics that watches them, the audiences to be multiplied by millionfold as compared to what was once possible. So in that sense, it becomes a much more appealing stage, a much more appealing platform for people who are trying to get attention,

get notoriety, get significance through violence and man. And do you think by spreading it on social media and the internet, do you think that can encourage others? Because that seemed to be a goal of the suspect was to encourage others to commit acts of violence. It definitely can. I mean, the whole thing about mass shootings is that it's a very much an emulated, a copycatting phenomenon.

What is particularly troubling for me is that it's spread from school shootings by disgruntled stories. students all the way to New Zealand and other places where people use it for ideological purposes, ostensibly. And anybody who has the cause and has the motivation to get notoriety is now aware that this is a very efficient tool that's going to be watched by millions, if not billions of people. And do you think there's some contagion element to this? I know that's a very debated topic about if there is a contagion of a variety of things. But do you think in this instance

that it could be? I would assume. I would assume that it's definitely increasing in frequency, both in the United States and now we have New Zealand. These acts of violence that are widely publicized in the media, whether it's a vehicular murder or shootings of different kinds, These things are multiplying. And I think that it's definitely copycating, not just simply copycading, but realizing that it's a very effective way of getting attention to oneself, getting attention to one's cause, getting attentions to one's heroism, as it were. So I would not be surprised that it would be multiplying even more in the future. New Zealand's prime minister has vowed not to speak the name of the alleged attacker, which is something that a lot of people have praised her for.

Do you think this will help deter others, given the drive that we spoke of, of many terrorists looking for infamy? Do you think that will have any impact? I think it's a very valuable gesture that she did, because ultimately the motivation underlying the deed is, to my mind, the search for notoriety and significance, doing something that gains their respect and admiration of millions of people. So not mentioning the name takes chips away at that motivation.

To what extent this will be enough is to be doubted because, you know, the media will have to share in keeping the name secret and others will catch the video. and publicize it. So, you know, whereas symbolically it's a very important gesture that she did, I'm not sure that ultimately it will have all that much of an impact. And what is your research shown about white supremacists? Are they different from other kinds of terrorists you've studied? The basic, the core dynamics is the same. In both cases of the white suprematist or the Islamic terrorist or the Sri Lankan terrorists, that we studied,

the underlying motivation is what we call the quest for significance, the quest to matter, to have self-respect and respect of others. This is very much the case with white suprematist.

We just finished a book on neo-Nazis in Germany to be published by Oxford University Press and we studied about 40 of them that went through the whole cycle of joining,

being active for about 10 years, living and then trying to reintegrate into society. And the motivations are very similar to those of the youngsters who travel to Syria or Iraq to join the ranks of ISIS. The motivation is to do something important, to matter, to become a hero, a martyr, to gain power, to gain influence through violence against others. We have a model that explains the conjunction of this motivation with an ideological narrative and the support of a network that validates the narrative. When you have these three components together, whether it be white suprematist, Islamic jihadists or a national, ethno-national terrorists, you have the very same ingredients.

There is the need to become significant, to do something heroic, to become a martyr, a narrative that tells you how to do it, how to attain that goal, through hitting, through fighting, through destroying the alleged enemy of one's religion, one's nation, one's ethnic group. And there is a group and network that supports that narrative, that validates the narrative, that views it as a group. part of shared reality, that this is real, that this is really justifiable, even though mayhem and violence are generally prohibited in society, you need a network that, a local network that tells you, no, no, in this case, it's allowable. You have permission. You have the, you know, the license to kill, as it were. This sounds like the book you have coming out this June called the three pillars of radicalization, and in those pillars you mentioned or need narratives and network.

Can you explain those concepts a little bit more? I know we just touched on the network element of it, but the other two, the needs and the narratives. Again, the need, you know, in the literature on terrorism, there is usually a list of motivations that people mention. Adoration of the leader, loyalty to the leader, religious motivations, the perks of paradise, money, even feminism to show that women can also do. it, but we find that underlying all these specific motivations, there is a universal human need to be noticed, to be respected, to have significance. And so how do you, it's a universal need. Most people have it to some degree.

Some people are more ambitious in that regard. Others less ambitious. But everybody wants to be noticed, wants to matter. Most people attain it through socially acceptable means. You and I are trying to make our way through our contributions to society, through our profession, through prosocial deeds that are compatible with societal requirements. But you can also gain significance through fighting the alleged enemies of your group. And fighting in violence is particularly appealing to young people.

It's a universal, primordial means of gaining significance. That's how animals gain significance. That's how little children resolve their conflict. That's how sophisticated nations gain their place in the international pecking order by having a nuclear arsenal that can unleash untold violence. So, you know, there is something about violence that is very appealing as a tool to significance. A narrative that suggests, you know, you can become a hero overnight. You can become a martyr by attacking your enemies, whoever they might be, can be very appealing.

So this is the narrative aspect that tells you how to gain significance. And finally, because that narrative is usually at odds with the general societal narrative, narrative that prohibits violence against innocence, against women, children, the old folks, people who are innocent of any wrongdoing against you. You need a local group. It may be a neo-Nazi movement, it may be a white suprematist movement. It may be some imaginary movement of Knights Templar, as in the case of Andres Breivik, the Norwegian terrorist that killed about 70 people.

in the island of Utoia. It can be, you know, the imagined audience on the internet that is going to applaud you. But you need this kind of permission from a group that you know is going to support you. So these are the three elements. They create a combustible, explosive mixture when they come together.

A person can be very vulnerable to radicalization and be often ready to embark on violence against innocence. In the case of the New Zealand suspect, he seemed to be radicalized by the internet only, based on what we're reading out in the news media, that he connected with others through the internet, spread their ideology together, and became motivated to commit acts of violence.

So can you explain how the internet has replaced groups of people physically getting together? Because today, if someone with any kind of view, extremist views can reach someone with the same views from any corner of the globe at any time of the day. So how does that change the dynamic? It's a very important aspect of the Internet technology. We mentioned the sheer size of the audience that a person, a mass shooter, terrorists can have by virtue of it being advertised on the Internet. But the aspect that you're mentioning now is also of great importance in that you can have a group, a chat room, a group of individuals who share your view almost on any topic at the Internet, whether it be killing, whether it be terrorism, whether it be pornography. And therefore, that removes to some extent the need to have a face-to-face group.

You can always find a group of fans of like-minded people on the internet, and I think that allows people who are lone wolves who do not have any face-to-face connections with others who are similarly reminded, to get the kind of permission and support that the New Zealand shooter had. And I think that's a very dangerous aspect of the internet, that together with the sheer, volume of the audience makes this spectacular, if one can call them that, acts of violence and mayhem appealing to people who search for significance. One of the questions that arises after a terrorist attack is whether we can predict if someone will become a terrorist, because obviously there's many people who hold these extremist views

who do not become violent, like the New Zealand attacker. And there's some who do. So can we predict if someone will become a terrorist? becoming a terrorist is not a random event. One does not get up one morning and decides to shoot up people or blow oneself up. It's a psychological-driven event, which is influenced by the need, the narrative, and the network whose effect takes some time. If one knew what is the need of the individual, if one could measure it in advance, if one could see to what extent the individual. associates with a network of violently minded others.

If one could know what the narrative is that the individual is partaking of, then one could predict it. So, you know, of course, very often we do not know these things about an individual, although those who are close to the person, his friends or her friends, relatives, the family, sometimes they know. a notice, a change of closing when it comes to Islamic terrorists, attendance, a more intensive attendance at religious meetings,

a change in the individual's demeanor, a change in the individual's associations. These people who are in the immediate surroundings of the individual could be aware that there is a change and they should then

contact the authorities and share that information. So, yes, it could be predicted. In many cases, we don't have that information. In some cases, people have that information. And one way of combating and preventing these attacks would be to encourage people to, whenever such information becomes available, to share it with the authorities. Now, your question had another aspect, and that is, to what extent, individuals who hold extreme views and do not become terrorists or do not become shooters?

You know, this issue of radicalization isn't a dichotomy. It is not either a radical or not a radical. It lies on a continuum. It's a matter of degree. And the question is, to what extent they need to be significant overshadows every. everything else and you're willing to sacrifice all, sacrifice your career, sacrifice your family, sacrifice your freedom, maybe sacrifice your life on the altar of that cause that lend your significance. So, you know, people may hold extreme views, but not be quite ready, not be quite

ready to give such dominance to this one needs that would override everything else. And this continuum goes all the way from, you know, supporting it attributinally to willing to contribute money, to participating in a minor role in terrorist organizations, all the way to the willingness to become a suicide bomber and sacrifice when lives on alter of the cause. It's a continuum. It's not a dichotomy. I mean, terrorism is a part of life in this 21st century. Do you have data to to show if the number of terrorists are increasing? No, I don't. But I think there are hundreds of terrorist groups operating.

I think the last number was around 300 that I've seen. And what seems to be increasing is the white suprematist groups that can become violent. You know, there is a polarization of societies, both in Europe and the United States. and there's legitimations of xenophobic attitudes and populist ideologies. And this become now the mainstream, whereas before they were kind of despised fringe in society. You see it in Germany. The Alternative of Germany is now in the Bundestag. You see it in France.

You see it in Hungary. You see it in Poland. nationalism and populism are becoming more and more acceptable in society, and that in turn legitimizes the French groups that share the same ideas and are willing to go one step further through employment of violence. So I think the number of attacks have increased in the United States against synagogue, against mosques from in 2016-2016 onward. And you see the same tendencies the world over.

Of course, not to speak about Islamic extremism that has been rampant in the last, you know, several decades and is not going away anytime soon. That's really one of the most pressing issues facing national security and international security today. It is indeed. It is indeed. And the danger is clear and present and of great proportions. I know that, you know, very esteemed colleague, Stephen Pinker, has been showing how the degree of violence have been declining over the centuries and including in the last century. But, you know, this is a kind of inductivist argument, the idea that because it has been decreasing, we can expect further decreases. And I do not think that this is the case. I think things can be reversed, and especially with the great technology, nuclear technology,

all kinds of weapons of mass destruction that could fall into the hands of fanatics. The danger is great, and society needs to mobilize itself to fight against it with all means at our disposal. Do you think there is enough international call to do so? I do not think so. I think especially in our country, there's been very little attention to the problem in its general form. We have been assuming that to fight terrorism, the only way is to employ them military and the police and do swore plots and so forth. But the problem is social psychological. You cannot kill an ideology.

Governor Romney quipped some years ago that we... We cannot kill our way out of this mess. Indeed we cannot. The military means are necessary but insufficient. You have to understand what prompts individuals to embark on violence and the embracement of radical ideologies. You have to prevent it. It has to be a whole society effort.

It starts with the treatment of immigrants and refugees. It starts with respect. of alternative religions. It has to involve trusting the police, police community relations, community institutions, religious institutions, social services, the educational institutions. It has to be a whole society effort. It cannot be left to the military because the problem is not only resolvable on the military grounds. And you're often interviewed in the media about the topic of de-radicalization, and two recent stories were about, you were a part of, the stories highlighted recently reformed white supremacists.

Can you explain the process of how a person can become de-radicalized? There are many different forms of the radicalization. Basically, the radicalization is the reverse of radicalization. It involves the same three elements of need, narrative, and network. that I mentioned before. For example, in our work on the German neo-Nazis, those who left the movement, who became deradicalized, either had their alternative needs evoked.

They became older, they wanted to get married, they wanted to have a profession. They got tired of just putting all their eggs in one basket. So that's the need component. some individuals became disenchanted with the ideology. They saw that ideology is just a kind of tokenism, that people are not serious about it, that the people in the movement are bent on partying

and getting into fights and brutality as opposed to really caring about the societal change that they were purported to care about. Some people were disenchanted with the network. They felt that this band of brothers that was promised them that gave them permission to become violent isn't really a band of brothers. There's a lot of knifing in the back, a lot of betrayal, lack of camaraderie. So, you know, all these are elements that can promote the radicalization. We have also seen the radicalization that is spontaneous.

For example, in Egypt and Algeria, there were radical movements that deradicalized, as it were spontaneously. But it was not quite spontaneous. It happened when it became clear that the violence would not promote significance. When the public turns against al-jihad in Egypt, the al-jihad. organization because they were killing tourists and tourism is the lifeblood of Egyptian economy. So the public turns against them.

Their weapons caches were confiscated, they were put in jail, and then they realized that the Koran prohibits violence. So, you know, once it is clear that violence is not going to serve the means of significance, they are open and their mind becomes open to. alternative ideas and they see that religion actually prohibits violence, something they did not see, strangely enough, when the going was strong. There are attempts to eradicate people in a systematic way, for example, in Saudi Arabia, in Sri Lanka, in detention camps where suspected and arrested terrorists are held.

And these attempts bring together the terrorists with governmental clerics that espouse a different interpretation of their religion. They offer them alternative ways of gaining significance through vocational training, through finding jobs, ways of integrating into society. So all of these have to do with addressing the need in a different way. extricating the person from the network that was supportive of violence and inserting them in the network that is anti-violence, sometimes their families, and exposing them to narratives that interpret religion or provide alternative ideologies as to what significance, how significance can be attained in ways other than violence. What can communities and governments do to prevent terrorism?

Can they step in and help give people significance that they were looking for through these extremist groups? Yes, that's definitely something that communities and governments can do. I'm collaborating with one such program in Denmark, the Arhus model, in the city of Arhus, who is run by my friend, Dr. Preben Bertelsen. and they use psychological principle to involve community institutions, the schools, the police in particular, social services, families to prevent radicalization whenever it rears its ugly head, whether it's youngsters in the school or even returning fighters from, the field of battle in Syria and Iraq.

It requires a concerted family effort. It requires trust between the police and the community so that the families feel that the police is on their side and is not going to just arrest and punish their members, but they will do all they can in order to mitigate attenuate their tendency to become radicals. So, you know, communities can do a lot. There is an attempt that has been criticized in many places,

the strong cities network of which American cities, several American cities are also members, to promote this kind of community effort. It's not without its problems. Sometimes some communities feel targeted and victimized by these programs. need to keep searching for ways of addressing the problems as a society in its entirety. Psychologists can be very helpful because I think that we understand the roots of the problem.

We understand that it is the needs. It is the significance. It is the narratives. It is the networks. How to translate it into policies is beyond the meager power of a few psychologists. It has to be a whole community effort, a whole country effort, a governmental effort. It has to be a large initiative, long-lasting initiative. And of course, it's difficult to implement because, you know, politics is local and short-sighted. And what we are talking about is a long-term program that will last and extend itself for many years. Yeah, so for psychology's role in deregitalization, do you think, that psychologists are brought in enough on those elements, like working with governments,

working with communities? I do not think so. I think that both the psychological community, APA, APS, all kinds of organizations that bring together psychologists of various ills should offer their services to the government to a great extent, but also the government should realize that the problem is not going to away unless a large counter-radicalization effort is being made. And under the previous administration, President Obama, there was one attempt of a large meeting at the White House to promote counter-violent extremism initiatives. I think it kind of subsided at this point, but I think it is a dire need that needs to

be undertaken, the initiatives have to be undertaken both on part of psychological societies and on part of governmental bodies that would realize that these kind of activities are necessary if we are to control and reduce that very dangerous phenomenon that we are seeing growing now. So there's still a lot of work to do, but do you feel like that? like there is hope in this area that we can stop the tide of terrorism and prevent more acts of violence and de-radicalize people? There is always hope. I think it's a very challenging problem, especially given the uncertainties that are sweeping the world these days, the migration crisis,

the refugee crisis, economic issues, rising nationalism, you know, the European community, disintegrating or falling apart to some extent. These are very troubling phenomena that unsettled the kind of peacefulness and complacency that we have had since Second World War. And these uncertainties breed populism, breed simplistic ideologies

that speak in black and white terms that define us versus them and these ideologies dehumanize the out group and it's a very short step from those kind of perspectives to legitimation of violence.

So we're living in very troubling times but we need to do all that we can to assuage those dangerous possibilities and use the knowledge, psychological knowledge, social psychological knowledge that we have

in order to promote counter-radicalization activities wherever we can. Because otherwise, you know, we are drawing close to the edge of an abyss because these are very dangerous times and we must do what we can to resist those. alluring and yet extremely dangerous tendencies.

Thank you so much for joining us, Dr. Kruklansky. It's been a really fascinating conversation. Thank you very much, Kathleen. Dr. Kruklanski will be featured in the April issue of the Monitor on Psychology, APA's magazine for members that covers science, education, psychology practice, and more. The story will be posted online on April 1st. You can read it by visiting APA's website at APA.org slash monitor. This is the second bonus episode we've done focusing on

breaking news in addition to our bi-weekly podcasts that air every other Wednesday. We want to know what you think about these new episodes and our regularly scheduled podcasts. Please share your comments and ideas with me. You can email me at K-Luna at APA.org. That's K-L-U-N-A at APA.org. Speaking of psychology is part of the APA Podcast Network, which includes other great podcasts such as APA Journal's dialogue about new psychological research and progress notes

about the practice of psychology. You can find all of our podcasts on iTunes, Stitcher, or wherever you get your podcasts. You can also go to our website, speakingofpsychology.org, to listen to more episodes. I'm Caitlin Luna with the American Psychological Association.