Running head: GANGS, CULTS, AND TERRORIST GROUPS: DIFFERENCES AND SIMILARITIES Differences and Similarities Between Gangs, Cults and Terrorist Groups Amy M. Doughten Queens University of Charlotte Author Note Amy M. Doughten, Department of Psychology, Queens University of Charlotte. The author would like to acknowledge the difficulties and struggles experienced by hundreds of thousands of individuals in gangs, cults, and terrorist groups around the world. Correspondence concerning this paper should be addressed to Amy M. Doughten, Department of Psychology, Queens University of Charlotte, Charlotte, NC 28274. E-mail: [email protected].
27
Embed
Amy M. Doughten Queens University of Charlotte Author … · socioeconomically disadvantaged youth. Cult Group Structure Although cults may differ in size and ideology, researchers
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Running head: GANGS, CULTS, AND TERRORIST GROUPS: DIFFERENCES AND SIMILARITIES
Differences and Similarities Between Gangs, Cults and Terrorist Groups
Amy M. Doughten
Queens University of Charlotte
Author Note
Amy M. Doughten, Department of Psychology, Queens University of Charlotte.
The author would like to acknowledge the difficulties and struggles experienced by
hundreds of thousands of individuals in gangs, cults, and terrorist groups around the world.
Correspondence concerning this paper should be addressed to Amy M. Doughten,
Department of Psychology, Queens University of Charlotte, Charlotte, NC 28274. E-mail:
These results are similar to findings by Lahey, Gordon, Loeber, Stouthamer-Loeber, and
Farrington (1999). They conducted two longitudinal studies to predict which youth were more
GANGS, CULTS, AND TERRORIST GROUPS: DIFFERENCES AND SIMILARITIES 6
likely to join a gang. They found that street gang members are more likely to come from a lower
socioeconomic status, have delinquent friends, be exposed to gangs in school, and come from
single-parent families that provide inadequate supervision. Results also seemed to point to a
correlation between baseline conduct disorder (persistent behavioral pattern during childhood
and adolescence where aggressive and often violent actions are committed against others) and
gang entry.
Although an individual may join a street gang, this is does not necessarily mean the
individual will become deeply involved. As noted, research indicates that many gangs have a
relatively loose and dynamic structure. Therefore, some individuals may self-identify as gang
members but have peripheral involvement.
Alleyne and Wood (2010) looked at different levels of individual gang involvement in
the United Kingdom.1 They administered a questionnaire to 798 participants in high school to
see what factors might differentiate levels of individual gang participation. They found that gang
members were more anti-authority oriented and perceived social status as more important than
non-gang youth. Moral disengagement theory was not a main predicator; however, three moral
disengagement mechanisms were consistently activated among gang members: victim blaming,
euphemisms, and displacement of responsibility. Also in contrast to group resistance, the
perception of an out-group threat did not significantly affect gang entry; however, once in the
gang, the presence of an out-group threat did result in violent action.
1 It is important to note that researchers defined gangs using the Eurogang definition: “a gang, or troublesome youth group, is any durable, street-oriented youth group whose involvement in illegal activity is part of their group identity.” Although researchers acknowledged the similarities between American and European research results, they believe that research on European gangs has been stunted by reliance on American gang research (Alleyne & Wood, 2010).
GANGS, CULTS, AND TERRORIST GROUPS: DIFFERENCES AND SIMILARITIES 7
Pinizzotto, Davis, and Miller (2007) also found moral disengagement mechanisms in
street gangs. Participants in their research study were violent incarcerated males who self-
identified as gang members who took responsibility for their actions, and were aware of the
results. The participants in their study were slightly older (average age of 20 with two
participants over 30 years of age). Some were married and several had children. On average,
each had committed their first act of violence by age nine.
The gangs as described by these participants were far more structured than the youth
street gangs described above. They were organized in military-style hierarchy with each member
having a place and defined job within a formal structure. The members learned violent gang
values from an early age and had them strongly and regularly reinforced. Antisocial behaviors
were instilled by the gang and created a sense of group identification. Gang names and
identifying symbology became very important. Interestingly, all of them indicated a strong sense
of social duty and a protective attitude toward their neighborhood. The former gang members
expressed respect for the elderly and a responsibility toward the youth (Pinizzotto, Davis, &
Miller, 2007). This social agency may be reflective of a level of institutionalization and strong
in-group identification.
In summary, gangs may range from a very fluid organizational structure to a rigid
hierarchal style. These differences may reflect varying levels of institutionalization as a result of
in-group identification formed as a result of resistance identity. Although some research
indicates that some moral disengagement mechanisms are present when individuals commit
delinquent behavior, it does not appear to be a consistent predicating factor for extreme gang
violence. Most gangs center on criminal activity; however, not all criminal activity is necessarily
GANGS, CULTS, AND TERRORIST GROUPS: DIFFERENCES AND SIMILARITIES 8
violent. Antisocial behavior and conduct disorder may be predicators of gang involvement for
socioeconomically disadvantaged youth.
Cult Group Structure
Although cults may differ in size and ideology, researchers have identified similar
psychological characteristics that appear to be applicable to all cultic groups. Dr. Robert J. Lifton
(1989, a leading authority on brainwashing, thought control, and cults developed the first widely
used list of identifying cult characteristics. These characteristics are applicable whether the group
is religious in nature or not:
Milieu Control: control of human communication. Mystical Manipulation: The follower is convinced of the higher purpose within
the special group. Demand for Purity: The world is sharply divided into absolute good and the
absolute evil. Cult of confession: Personal boundaries are destroyed and every thought,
feeling, or action that does not conform to the rules of the group must be confessed.
Aura of Sacred Science: The group advances the idea that the cult's laws, rules
and regulations are absolute and, therefore, to be followed automatically and without question. No alternative viewpoint is allowed.
Loaded Language: Loaded language invokes fear or other thought-stopping
techniques. Controlling the words used to communicate helps to control thoughts.
Doctrine over person: The value of individuals is insignificant when
compared to the value of the group. Group belief supersedes individual conscience and integrity.
Dispensed Existence: The group decides who has a right to exist and who
does not (Lifton, 1989).
GANGS, CULTS, AND TERRORIST GROUPS: DIFFERENCES AND SIMILARITIES 9
An alternative and simpler description to how cult leaders control their members is found
in the BITE Model. First described by Steve Hassan (2000), it states that cults use Behavioral,
Informational, Thought and Emotional Control to obtain and maintain their followers. Identities
within cults are the results of a systemic indoctrination process that disassociates the member
from previous identities. The indoctrination process separates a member from previous belief
systems, values, and significant relationships, creating a dual identity. The dominant “cult
identity” is constantly at war with the subconscious old identity, resulting in cognitive
dissonance.
Cognitive dissonance describes the uncomfortable feeling when an individual holds two
contradictory ideas simultaneously. People reduce dissonance by justifying or rationalizing their
attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors (Festinger, 1957). Cognitive dissonance often results when a cult
member is faced with irrefutable proof that the cultic belief system is false or that the cult leader
is corrupt. Rather than leaving the cult, a cult member might rationalize the dichotomy by
reasoning that the valid information is false and presented by someone who is trying to
undermine the cult itself.
Although Lifton’s eight criteria of mind control and Hassan’s BITE model are widely
used to identify cultic groups, most research on individual members is based on observation, or
studies done without control groups. Cult members themselves typically are not aware they are
in a cult and cult leaders very rarely allow outsiders in. Therefore, it is virtually impossible to
devise any type of study that can be replicated or viewed as unbiased.
The difficulty of obtaining time zero data on cult members is a serious research limitation
(Burks, 2002). He points out that research using ex-cult members as participants can introduce a
level of bias as well. Ex-cult members may feel the need for revenge or to expose the cult. Other
GANGS, CULTS, AND TERRORIST GROUPS: DIFFERENCES AND SIMILARITIES 10
cult members may be emotionally wounded by their treatment. Further, the possibilities of
measuring cognitive function before a person is drawn into a cult and then immediately
afterward would seem to be statistically beyond the bounds of probability.
Although acknowledging these challenges, Burks (2002) conducted one of the first
studies indicating the presence of at least a temporary cognitive impairment in ex-cult members.
Over 132 participants were administered multiple tests upon admittance to the Wellspring
Retreat and Resource Center, a residential treatment program for ex-cult members. Tests
included a demographic questionnaire, the Hopkins Symptom Checklist Dissociation Screen, the
Beck Depression Inventory, the Group Psychological Abuse Scale and Neuropsychological
Impairment Scale. A clear correlation was shown between the intensity of the cult environment
and cognitive impairment. Impaired cognition included dissociation, depression, anxiety, and
difficulty concentrating.
A common characteristic found in cults is the presence of a dynamic leader (or
leadership). Many cult leaders claim to be of divine origin or that “God” speaks directly to or
through them. It is possible that there is a physiological source behind these claims.
Persinger (1983), a cognitive neuroscientist, theorized “god delusions” may emanate
from lability in the temporal lobe region of the brain. He applied electrical stimulation to the
temporal lobe of the subjects in his experimental study. Subjects reported feelings of grandeur,
encounters with the divine, and god delusions. It may be that when the right hemisphere of the
brain is stimulated in the cerebral region presumed to control notions of self, the left hemisphere
(the seat of language) is called upon to make sense of this nonexistent entity, and the mind
generates a “sensed presence.” Unfortunately, it is doubtful that any leader experiencing and
GANGS, CULTS, AND TERRORIST GROUPS: DIFFERENCES AND SIMILARITIES 11
believing in his personal divinity would submit to the type of medical procedures required to
confirm temporal lobe lability.
In a different approach, Burke (2006) makes the case for a predictive model of
personality disorders in cult leaders. Burke theorizes that most cult leaders display Antisocial
Personality Disorder (ASPD) traits which can be coupled with Narcissistic Personality Disorder
(NPD). Psychopathic individuals seek out and prey on the weak and needy, making a group full
of vulnerable people prime targets for their dominating and aggressive behavior. As a result of
emotional abuse, ex-cult members may exhibit dissociation, depersonalization, and depression.
The research done by Burks (2002) and Burke (2006) seems to indicate that perceptions
of reality and the ability to exercise sound judgment become skewed for individuals in cults.
Members may become psychologically conditioned to function like a personality extension of
the cult leader, adversely affecting innate decision-making ability as well as the ability to
perceive actual reality in contrast to an artificial environment created by the cult leader.
Robins and Post (1997) argue that cults attract socially isolated individuals. Cult
members may feel alienated by society and are drawn to the sense of belonging that cults
provide. The sense of belonging becomes paramount and results in the need to surrender
autonomy to the cult leader. It is not the cause itself but rather the need to belong that is the
psychological motivator for cult membership.
Further, they hypothesize that most cult leaders exhibit a paranoid personality type. Using
case studies that include Jim Jones and David Koresh, they argue that cult leader personality can
be characterized by three major elements: narcissism, a paranoid leadership style, and an ability
to work well within conventional environments. The paranoid leadership style increases the need
to isolate the group from the outside, making the in-group the only choice for followers. For
GANGS, CULTS, AND TERRORIST GROUPS: DIFFERENCES AND SIMILARITIES 12
socially alienated followers, the closed and controlled social in-group satisfies the human need
for belonging (Robins & Post, 1997).
In summary, cults appear to be characterized by a strong level of control and organization
and a strong separation between the in-group and out-group. The in-group/out-group dynamic is
reinforced by isolating the group through control of behavior and thought, and access to
information. Individuals attracted to cults may feel a sense of social isolation from society; the
in-group dynamic and need to belong to a cause may be a prime motivator for entry. Members in
a cult experience cognitive dissonance and may be at a greater risk for depression, disassociation,
and increased levels of anxiety. Barring a physiological reason for “god delusions,” cult leaders
exhibit paranoid personality types with a high rate of narcissism.
Terrorist Group Structure
Terrorist groups are evolving. Like gang research, research on terrorist groups indicates
that a “one size fits all” pathology is not applicable. Psychosocial data has changed. For example,
in the 1960s and 1970s, the demographic profile for terrorists was typically that of a well-
educated single male in his mid-20s from a middle class background. This changed in the 1980s,
with the average age range dropping to 17-23, socioeconomic status reflected more of an
impoverished background, very low education levels. Finally in the last two decades, the
demographic profile is changing again with many terrorists having university-level education,
age range climbing to the late forties, and many of them are married. The recruitment of women,
especially in secular terrorist groups is on the rise (Victoroff, 2005).
Researchers for the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PCPSR)
conducted a survey in 2001 among 1,357 adults in the West Bank and Gaza. Researchers found
that poverty or low levels of education influenced attitudes regarding political violence. Support
GANGS, CULTS, AND TERRORIST GROUPS: DIFFERENCES AND SIMILARITIES 13
for terrorism against Israeli civilians was more common among professionals than among
laborers (43.3 vs. 34.6 percent) and among those with secondary education than among illiterate
respondents (39.4 vs. 32.3 percent) (Krueger & Maleckova, 2002). These findings are consistent
with previous data that indicated that 94 of 132 (71 percent) of Muslim terrorists had at least
some college education, and 57 of 134 (43 percent) were professionals (Sageman, 2004).
It is difficult to conduct empirical research on terrorist groups due to the lack of direct
access to the groups. Therefore, many researchers may attempt to define a wide variety of
behaviors (kidnappings, suicide bombings) by “diagnosis by distance” and assume personality
disorders must be a defining characteristic. However, Crenshaw (2000) argues that this is one of
the problems with identifying terrorist groups; the term “terrorist” is often used pejoratively to
condemn a cause rather than describe a behavior. She writes that as terrorism has evolved, the
“new” terrorist groups are motivated more by religious belief than political belief. Religiously-
motivated terrorist groups do share some commonalities. An intense group motivation is present.
Individual personality factors become less important than feeling solidarity with the group.
The sublimation of individual feelings to the terrorist group (Group Process Theory) is
confirmed by Victoroff (2005). He argues there is no single mind of the terrorist. Roles within
the group are hierarchal. However, although accepting the relative heterogeneity of the “terrorist
profile,” he identifies four characteristics that may be common to terrorist leaders. First, a leader
terrorist leader typically has a high affective valence about a specific ideological issue. Secondly
the leader feels a very personal stake. This personal stake can have an internal or external origin.
For example, it could be strongly perceived oppression, humiliation or persecution or it could be
an extraordinary need for identity, glory or vengeance. It might also be a means to express
intrinsic aggressivity.
GANGS, CULTS, AND TERRORIST GROUPS: DIFFERENCES AND SIMILARITIES 14
A third personality characteristic identified by Victoroff (2005) could be any combination
of low cognitive flexibility, an elevated tendency toward fundamental attribution error, and a low
tolerance for ambiguity. And last, most terrorist leaders manifest a capacity to suppress moral
constraints against harming innocents.
Suppression of moral constraints may reflect moral disengagement as the leaders
reconstruct their moral imperatives. Victoroff (2005) posits that the way these new behavioral
mandates are passed to the group reflects the Social Learning Theory of Aggression (people
learn through observing and then modeling the behaviors and attitudes of others). Although
terrorist group leaders may share some common characteristics, individual leadership styles and
motivations themselves may differ, resulting in different types of group structure.
Leadership motivations may be reflective of different types of terrorism. Post (2007)
points out that acts of terror are a “behavior, a strategy adopted by groups with widely differing
goals and constituencies.” It is not that terrorists are suffering from psychotic disorders; they
deliberately adopt certain types of behavior to achieve a desired consequence. For religious
extremists, killing in the name of god not only achieves a consequence, but it becomes a sacred
obligation dictated by the leader.
In writing about the “mind of the terrorist” Post (2004) discusses the charismatic leader-
follower relationship. The leader-follower relationship may have two entirely different dynamics.
One dynamic reflects a psychologically healthy follower who is temporarily needy because of
societal stress. The other is the follower who only feels whole when part of the idealized group.
The charismatic leadership/follower relationship occurs when the follower perceives the leader
as superhuman or inspired, leading the follower to believe without question, unconditionally
comply with directives, and to respond to the leader with unqualified emotional support.
GANGS, CULTS, AND TERRORIST GROUPS: DIFFERENCES AND SIMILARITIES 15
Miller (2005) found that personalities of leaders and followers may differ. Leaders will
be egocentric with a charismatic self-confidence and presence. They may exhibit narcissistic and
paranoid personality types. Followers will be drawn to the group’s goals and ideals or they may
be attracted to the thrill, profit, or other combination of personal motives. Nevertheless, Miller
writes that psychological strength, not weakness, may be an identifying characteristic of the most
effective terrorists.
In contrast to the idea of a general lack of psychopathology among individual terrorists,
Gottschalk and Gottschalk (2004) argue that terrorists are more like to share important
psychological orientations with each other than with members of their respective ethnic control
groups and they share a discernible psychosocial profile that reflects the concept of pathological
hatred. These hypotheses were supported by research on 90 Palestinian and Israeli Jewish
incarcerated terrorists.
Researchers administered MMPI-2 tests followed by a scale to measure pathological
hatred. In addition, researchers conducted semi-structured interview with terrorists who had
recently been released from prison. Results were compared to two control groups who reflected
similar demographic variables. Researchers found that participants had significantly higher
scores on MMPI-2 subscales measuring psychopathic deviate paranoid, depressive, and
hypomanic tendencies. Those that identified with fundamentalist groups were more likely to
obtain high scores on the schizophrenic scale. Interestingly, comparisons of significant subscales
among various ethnic groups suggests that schizophrenic tendencies constitute one of the two
highest clinical scales among 56% of the Israeli Jews, and one of the three highest among all of
the Israeli Jews. In contrast, psychopathic deviate tendencies constituted the highest clinical scale
GANGS, CULTS, AND TERRORIST GROUPS: DIFFERENCES AND SIMILARITIES 16
among 29% of Palestinian terrorists, and one among the three highest clinical scales among 40%
of them (Gottschalk & Gottschalk, 2004).
Comparing scores from terrorists claiming different types of ideological orientation
(revolutionary, secular, fundamentalist) revealed important schizophrenic tendencies among
fundamentalists. Scores on the schizophrenic scale are significantly elevated beyond the
significant pathological level among 47.7% and moderately elevated among 58%. Following the
administration of the MMPI-2 and the pathological hatred scales, one researcher interviewed 57
terrorists using a semi-structured interview that allowed respondents to talk about their
worldviews. The interviews were subsequently analyzed by both researchers (Gottschalk &
Gottschalk, 2004).
The results suggested that a virulent ethnocentrism and racism worldview led to
dehumanization of the “Other.” Researchers found stunning similarities in the process, regardless
of whether the construction was Jewish or Palestinian. Researchers also found that puritan and
conformist tendencies were prevalent among all groups as well as the need for absolute
submission to leaders and religious law. Researchers extrapolated that these individuals had
rational political goals and used violence against innocent victims to achieve those goals.
(Gottschalk & Gottschalk, 2004).
Borum (2011) describes some variables that predicate involvement with terrorism. It
appears that individuals go through various processes before committing to a terrorist group. One
conceptual model for this process is social movement theory. In the case of an individual joining
a terrorist group, he or she might experience cognitive opening, religious seeking, frame
alignment, and socialization.
GANGS, CULTS, AND TERRORIST GROUPS: DIFFERENCES AND SIMILARITIES 17
Cognitive opening is when the individual becomes receptive to the possibility of new
ideas and worldviews. Religious seeking means the individual seeks meaning through religious
idiom. In frame alignment, what is offered by the group makes sense to the seeker and attracts
his or her initial interest. During socialization the individual experiences religious lessons and
activities that facilitate indoctrination and identity-construction. Radicalization is a process that
occurs over time as the individual is recruited into the terrorist group (Borum, 2011).
The structure and formation of a group’s ideology may provide a framework for
individuals seeking belonging and identity. For example, the group provides a common set of
beliefs, those beliefs are inviolable and unquestionable, and the behaviors mandated by those
beliefs are seen as serving a meaningful objective and as being goal directed (Borum, 2004).
It should be noted that studying the individual and group psychological aspects of
terrorism is potentially a huge field. One literature review found that 80% of terrorism research
articles published between 1995-1999 were either thought pieces or were based on information
taken from media sources, with less than 20% providing substantially new knowledge based on
previously unavailable data (Silke, 2001).
In summary, while no compelling psychopathological terrorist profile exists, dynamic
leadership is a key factor in terrorist groups, the inviolability of the group ideology may provide
a structural frame for individuals with a strong need to belong, and the in-group/out-group
dynamic is a uniting factor.
Similarities and Differences Between Groups
Important parallels exist between gangs, cults, and terrorist groups. These parallels
include the leadership dynamic, in-group/out-group attitudes, and recruiting techniques.
Although these parallels exist, there are differences in behavior, group goals, and levels of
GANGS, CULTS, AND TERRORIST GROUPS: DIFFERENCES AND SIMILARITIES 18
control. Each of these similarities and differences, where applicable, are discussed in the
following sections.
Leadership
As previously noted, cult leaders and terrorist group leaders appear to display paranoid
personality type characteristics. Paranoia plays an important role in the “need for enemies.” The
innate tendency to idealize the in-group is exacerbated by the leader’s paranoid thinking. An
example of this type of leader is David Koresh (cult leader). His paranoia led him to create a
controlling social environment requiring complete devotion by his followers. Koresh and 76 of
his followers were killed following a siege by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation
(Robins & Post, 1997).
Cult and terrorist leaders appear to share outwardly charming, charismatic, and inspiring
personality types. Both claim to have a special exalted status and are not accountable to any
human authority (Centner, 2003).
Group Dynamic
Cults and terrorist groups are closed groups and wary of outsiders. They see the world as
a cosmic struggle between good and evil. Both groups stress loyalty to the group, and isolation
from the out-group. There is a strict in-group morality.
In contrast, gangs may or may not show a strong in-group dynamic. As is the case with
cults and terrorist groups, it is difficult and likely inaccurate to generalize concepts about gang
group structure since, as previously noted, some gangs are very fluid and dynamic in structure
while others institutionalize and develop very rigid hierarchies. This may indicate a weaker sense
of in-group identity and loyalty to one single leader in street gangs.
GANGS, CULTS, AND TERRORIST GROUPS: DIFFERENCES AND SIMILARITIES 19
The in-group dynamic may be important in some gangs. One researcher explored the
similarities between gangs and cults using the following concepts: risky-shift phenomenon,
group-think effect, collective moral neutralization, dependency-critical thinking effect, coerced-
motivation phenomenon. He found that in both cults and gangs, the “self” becomes situationally
dependent on the “group identity.” However, while cults typically demonstrate a
spiritual/religious/ideological belief system, gangs are primarily organized along crime and
violence systems. He found that cults and gangs experience a systematic deterioration of critical
thinking skills and an increase in dependency on the group for identity (Knox, 1999).
Recruitment
Recruitment techniques are also very similar between gangs, cults, and terrorist groups.
Recruitment efforts focus on young individuals, provide an overarching answer and appeal to
individuals marginalized from society. Recruited individuals may also have higher than normal
levels of alienation and conflict with the larger societal environment (Centner, 2003).
Knox (1999) posits that recruiting efforts of gangs and cults may focus on vulnerable
individuals with high levels of external locus of control. Recruits in all groups go through a
process of conversion resulting in the individual relinquishing control to the group leader. Knox
references Zimbardo’s famous prison-study agreement in the context that a gang has the ability
to exert extraordinary control over its members.
Group Purpose
Gangs, cults, and terrorist groups have different group goals. Terrorist groups typically
have political change goals. Thus, although the structure of the terrorist group focuses on loyalty
to the in-group, the behavior is outward facing. The behavior focus is on what is done to the out-
group (Centner, 2003).
GANGS, CULTS, AND TERRORIST GROUPS: DIFFERENCES AND SIMILARITIES 20
Cults have the goal of self-preservation. The focus is inward and on control of its
members. Terrorist groups must depend on a broad substructure of supporters whereas cults
typically are dependent on the in-group for survival (Centner, 2003).
Research does not indicate a consistent goal for gangs. Most gangs engage in some form
of criminal behavior, although the behavior itself is not necessary violent.
Potential for Violence
Using the Group Psychological Abuse Scale (rates aspects of religious,
psychotherapeutic, and other groups on compliance, exploitation, mind control, anxious
dependency) and comparing it to several case studies, Dole (2006) found that it is possible that
some terrorist groups may evolve from cults. He believes that the main difference in the two
groups is that cults are typically distinguished by a lack of violence toward the out-group. They
choose isolation in place of active engagement, whereas a terrorist group uses violence against
the out-group. He finds that it is more likely that terrorist groups are cult-like than it is that
cultists are terrorists. It is important to note that his findings are purely subjective.
Further supporting the idea that cults and terrorist groups are similar in the in-group/out-
group dynamic but markedly different in the potential for violence, researchers performed a case
study analysis on insurgent groups and cults. They examined three areas: individual, group, and
environment. Researchers found that violence was only used on the cult in-group and was used
for the purpose of collective intimidation. Abusive behavior was typically psychological in
nature. Violence in terrorist groups was typically both physical and psychological. Both groups
created a consistent social identity. They also found that both groups evidenced 6 types of
psychological abuse/group influence: isolation, control & manipulation of information, control
over personal life, emotional abuse, indoctrination into a system of absolute beliefs, imposition
GANGS, CULTS, AND TERRORIST GROUPS: DIFFERENCES AND SIMILARITIES 21
of single and unquestionable authority (Rodriguez-Carballeira, A., Martin-Pena, J., Almendros,
C., Escartin., J. Porrua, C. & Bertacco, M., 2010).
Discussion
Two compelling reasons exist against drawing firm parallels between all three groups:
lack of empirical and generalizable data and important differences in group structure. Both cults
and terrorist groups are very closed groups. Neither provides access to group members while the
members are part of the group. Thus, the research done is mostly qualitative with assumptions
drawn based on observed behavior of a very small subset of the group.
Making psychological assumptions in this manner is problematic at best. For example,
assuming that all cultists are suicidal based on the observations of Jim Jones’ followers or
Heavens Gate would discount the hundreds of thousands of individuals around the world who are
not suicidal but who are entrenched in cults. Assuming that all terrorists are suicide bombers
discounts the fact that only a minor number of terrorists have used this level of violence to
achieve their goals. The few studies that have produced empirical data have been done on
individuals who left these groups. The fact that they left may, in and of itself, be aberrant
behavior. Baseline studies of personality cannot be done prior to joining the group. Personality
studies and psychological evaluations done after the individual leaves the group may be skewed
based on the participant’s feelings about the group after leaving it.
The same holds true of individuals in gangs. The primary access to gang members is that
of members who have been incarcerated. Many gangs still retain networks inside of prison, and
the participants may feel a loyalty toward their gang that would skew results. An individual who
is incarcerated with current members of a gang may experience fear of reprisal if he or she is
seen to be talking about the group. Thus, even data obtained from speaking directly to
GANGS, CULTS, AND TERRORIST GROUPS: DIFFERENCES AND SIMILARITIES 22
incarcerated gang members may not be generalizable. Further, as noted above, studies done on
individuals who have left the gang may be skewed based on the participant’s feelings about the
group after leaving.
As has been shown above, assumptions cannot be made about each group that are
applicable to all groups of that label. In other words, not all gangs share the same characteristics,
and the same is true for cults and terrorist groups. Street gangs of young juveniles who commit
low crimes are fluid, lack hierarchy, and may simply be a non-desirable developmental stage in
some socio-economic regions. They differ from gangs that have institutionalized, show a rigid
hierarchy with strong loyalty to the gang itself, and engage in a pattern of pervasive violent
criminality.
Cults also differ. Cults can be as small in size as a few individuals to large groups that
number in the millions. Some cults are religious in nature and others are not. As certain cults age,
some members are “born in,” introducing a whole new dynamic in individuals that do not have
pre-cult experiences. Most cults are not violent toward outsiders, although some cults manifest a
pattern of emotional, sexual, and physical abuse within the group.
Terrorists groups vary widely, from nationalist-separatists, to social revolutionaries, to
those based on religious extremism. The majority of these groups appear to form in order to
accomplish rational goals (typically regime change in the country of origin). Progress toward
these goals could not be accomplished if everyone in the group had a disordered personality.
Terrorist attacks require intense planning, organization, and discipline. None of these
characteristics would seem to indicate pervasive psychological issues among members. Unlike
cults, most terrorist groups have the organizational goal to inflict violence against the out-group.
GANGS, CULTS, AND TERRORIST GROUPS: DIFFERENCES AND SIMILARITIES 23
Nevertheless, the data that is available does seem to indicate some very broad similarities
among the groups. All appear to have a very strong in-group/out-group dynamic. The individual
need to belong may be satisfied by the collective identity provided by the group. All appear to
manifest a certain inviolability of whatever ideology or belief system the group professes - even
if that belief system is simply one of resistance against authority, as in the case of
institutionalized gangs.
All of the groups appear to appeal to individuals who feel marginalized by society and
who are looking to satisfy the need to belong. It also appears that the process of joining one of
these groups may involve trigger moral disengagement processes as the individual conforms to
the mores of the group. In all groups, the individual gives up some level of autonomy and
control over self.
Group leaders may have some similar characteristics as well. Based on behavioral
observation, leaders may evidence paranoid personality characteristics, exercise authoritarian
control over group members, and may have a tendency toward narcissism. Of course, these
characteristics may be seen in leaders of other groups as well and are not limited to gangs,
terrorist groups and cults. Therefore, again it would be irresponsible to generalize these traits to
all gang, terrorist, and cult leaders.
Because of the inherent differences between the groups, this field presents both enormous
challenges and research opportunities to the social psychologist. Additional research on
individuals involved in gangs, cults, and terrorist groups must be done before strong
recommendations for standardized psychological treatment and legal approaches to prevention
strategies can be made with any level of confidence.
GANGS, CULTS, AND TERRORIST GROUPS: DIFFERENCES AND SIMILARITIES 24
References
Alleyne, E., & Wood, J. L. (2010). Gang involvement: psychological and behavioral
characteristics of gang members, peripheral youth, and non-gang youth. Aggressive
Behavior, 36, 423-436. doi: 10.1002/ab.20360
Borum, R. (2004). Psychology of terrorism. Tampa: University of South Florida.
Borum R. (2011). Understanding terrorist psychology. In Andrew Silke (Ed.) The psychology of