The argument
Martha Crenshaw argued in the early 1980s that terrorism is often a reasoned choice for groups that lack the capacity for conventional conflict. Robert Pape's work on suicide attacks suggested a strategic logic of coercing democracies into withdrawing territory. In this view, a group weighs expected benefits against costs, and its members respond to incentives and constraints.
- Attacks attract attention to a cause
- Governments may be provoked into harmful overreaction
- Groups compete with rivals for support
Why psychology matters here
Rational choice does not claim that terrorists are correct or morally justified, only that means are selected in light of goals and beliefs. The approach fits research that fails to find a single terrorist personality or consistently elevated rates of serious mental illness among perpetrators.
Criticisms
Max Abrahms has argued that groups often behave in ways poorly suited to their stated political aims, and that terrorism seldom achieves its declared objectives. He suggests many participants are motivated by social solidarity. Others point out that rationality is easily stretched to fit any outcome, particularly if personal or religious rewards are included among the benefits. Bryan Caplan distinguishes the supporters, activists, and suicide attackers, arguing that rational models fit them to different degrees. Pape's data and conclusions have also been challenged.
Further reading
- Crenshaw, M. (1981). The causes of terrorism. Comparative Politics, 13(4).
- Pape, R. A. (2003). The strategic logic of suicide terrorism. American Political Science Review, 97(3).
- Abrahms, M. (2008). What terrorists really want: Terrorist motives and counterterrorism strategy. International Security, 32(4).