1. The Hidden Implications of Radical Group Rhetoric: Integrative Complexity and Terrorism
Shannon C. Houck Laura Janelle Gornick Lucian Gideon Conway III
Introduction
Coding Terrorist and Non-Terrorist Groups for Integrative Complexity
Graphs
Public statements from each focal group occurring from 1998 to 2008 were used as source materials. From each of the 316 available documents, 5 paragraphs were randomly sampled for inclusion in the coded sample. Paragraphs were then adapted so that human scorers could code them without being aware of the specific identity of the document/group author, the group affiliation of the document author, or the date the document was issued. Documents were coded in two different sets. Reliability for set 1 (IC α=.82, Dialectical = α.81, Elaborative α = .72) and set 2 (IC α=.84, Dialectical α=.82, Elaborative α= .70) was satisfactory.
This research focused on two primary questions:
Using a 2 (Group Type: Terrorist versus Non-Terrorist) X 2 (Context: Transnational Versus Local), we attempted to determine if terrorists are more or less complex than their non-terrorist counterpart groups.
We expected terrorist groups would have lower overall IC compared to non-terrorist groups, particularly for dialectical forms of complexity.
To understand when terrorists might attack, we used four categorical time distinctions representing how close to an attack by that group that a document occurred, as well as some analyses with continuous measures of attack proximity.
We expected parallel patterns to emerge for the prediction of violent episodes within terrorist organizations with (1) lower integrative complexity as an attack neared, (2) this pattern especially in evidence for dialectical complexity, and (3) perhaps non-existent or even reversed for elaborative complexity.
Terrorist vs. Non-Terrorist Groups & Cognitive Complexity
Dialectical and Elaborative Complexity by Months until Next Attack
Are terrorists simple-minded? Can we use the simplicity of their public statements to predict when they will engage in violence? To help answer these questions, we compared the public rhetoric of two terrorist groups to ideologically-similar non-terrorist groups on integrative complexity and its two sub-components (dialectical complexity and elaborative complexity).
Little direct research to date exists relative to terrorism and complexity. The research that does exist supports the notion that terrorist rhetoric is fairly simple. Suedfeld and Leighton (2002) found terrorist Bin Laden was consistently lower than Western leaders on integrative complexity during the 9/11 crisis. Similarly, Smith et al. (2008) – using the same comparison groups discussed here – found that terrorist groups consistently scored lower on integrative complexity than comparable non-terrorist groups.
We aimed to expand on this prior work. In particular, we here for the first time (1) offer an in-depth look at both dialectical and elaborative complexity in relation to terrorism, and (2) attempt to understand the relationship between complexity markers and impending terrorist violence.
To accomplish these goals, we focus on two terrorist groups (Al Qa’ida and Al Qa’ida in the Arabian Penninsula) and two ideologically-similar groups that do not engage in terrorism (Hizb ut-Tahrir and the Movement for Islamic Reform in Arabia).
Overview, Design, and Hypotheses
(1) Terrorists were significantly less complex than non-terrorist groups on both Integrative and Elaborative complexity (F’s > 35.0, two-tailed p’s < .001).
(2) IC tended to increase as an attack neared. A pattern of complex thinking associated with defensive thinking (a tendency to defend views with elaborative complexity, but less likely to give credibility to opposing viewpoints dialectically) became more prevalent in terrorist rhetoric as a violent acts became imminent (r[140] = .22, p = .011).
Primary Results
Discussion
Taken as a whole, these results suggest that complexity can be a useful marker of terrorist rhetoric. Terrorists were simpler in their rhetoric than non-terrorists, and yet they showed an increase in elaborative forms of complexity – and decrease in dialectical forms – as an attack neared. Impending violence may cause terrorists to defend cherished beliefs with elaborative complexity but become less likely to consider different points of view. Given that terrorists are notoriously hard to study, the fact that we can potentially learn about them through their limited public rhetoric represents an important step.
Contact information
References .
Shannon C. Houck
Laura Janelle Gornick
Lucian Gideon Conway III
University of Montana
Smith, A. G. (2008a). The implicit motives of terrorist groups: How the needs for affiliation and power translate into death and destruction. Political Psychology, 29,
Smith, A. G., Sudefeld, P., Conway, L. G. III, & Winter, D. G. (2008). The language of violence: Distinguishing terrorist from nonterrorist groups by thematic content analysis. Dynamics of Asymmetric Conflict, 1,