Terrorism, anomie, and a weakened social fabric:

the formation of collateral outgroup victims

Frans Willem WinkelIntervict (Psychological Victimology

Program), Tilburg Universityf.w.winkel@uvt.nl

Social cohesion: a basic European value !!

• The “Founding Fathers of Europe” were driven by an attempt to foster social cohesion among citizens, and to enhance the social fabric between individuals

• A majority of European citizens conceptualize tolerance and respect for others – key features of social cohesion – as a basic European value (Atlas of European Values, Tilburg University)

• Terrorism is a major hazard for these values

Multiplicity of victims

• Both direct and indirect victims (relatives, the public at large) suffer from chronic post traumatic bereavement and PTSD– Negative “models” of self (perceptions of

external control), others (distrust) & the world (malevolent, extremely dangerous)

– PTSD emotions include fear and anger– Post traumatic anger is a risk factor for taking

the law in one’s own hands (diluted cohesion)

Collective victimization

• In-group victims: the public at large who feels threatened by potential exposure to acts of terrorism

• Out-group victims (often ignored group in this context): individuals who on the basis of shared trivial criteria (appearance or religious orientation) are perceived as belonging to the perpetrator’s (= terrorist) group– (minimal group paradigm: groups are easily created

(blue versus brown eyes), and in-group favoritism / outgroup derogation is automatically triggered

Empirical evidence:contact hypothesis and

psychological mechanisms

• Amir, Y (1969). Contact hypothesis, Psychological Bulletin, 71, 319 – 342.

• Winkel, F.W. (Ed.) (1987). Relaties tusssen groepen. Alphen: Samsom.– Winkel, F.W. (1997). Hate Crime and the necessity of Anti-

Racism Campaigning: testing the y - approach of portraying stereotypical information- processing. In: G.M. Stephenson & Clark, N. (Eds.). Procedures in Criminal Justice: Contemporary Psycholo gical Issues (pp. 14 - 20). Issues in Criminological and Legal Psychology, 1997, vol. 29. British Psychological Society: Leicester, UK.

– Winkel, F. W. (1999). A frustration / negative cue model of unfavorable police treatment of black citizens. Discrimination based on automatic and biased signal processing. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 1999, 22, 3-4, 273 - 287.

(Amir’s) Contact hypothesis

Inter GroupContact

FavorableConditions

UnfavorableConditions

Enhanced social cohesion,• Mutual understanding• Harmonic interactions

Enhanced anomie,• Mutual prejudice• Disharmonic interactions• Weakened social fabric

Terrorism, and triggeredPsychological Mechanisms

Favorable conditions

• Equal status between (group) members• A social climate / opinion leader in favor of

(promoting) intergroup contact• Majority group member with higher status

members of a minority • Contact is of an intimate rather than a casual

nature• When contact is pleasant or rewarding• Involvement in common goals / functionally

important activities

Unfavorable conditions: ….

• Terrorism from a mass- communication perspective &

• Psychological mechanisms triggered in recipients

Terrorism from a (mass) communication - perspective

• Message sent by perpetrator (terrorist)

• I am representing a social group / cultural, religious orientation ( making group membership salient)

• My culture is superior to your culture (in-out group categorization)

• Your group should be destroyed (terrorist act = illustration)

• Response of the recipient:

• Mirror processes:• Salience of group

member ship• Ingroup – outgroup

differentiation• Outgroup devaluation• Strong emotional

reactivity (fear and anger) to members of outgroups

Anomie: weakened social fabric

Unfavorable conditions: Psychological mechanisms

• Salience and ingroup - outgroup mechanism: membership of different groups is made salient

• Outgroup – homogeneity or pars pro toto – effect– Behavior exhibited by one or a few members

is seen as paradigmatic for all (trivial criteria) members

• Ultimate attribution error

Ultimate attribution error

• Fundamental attribution error: behavior engulfs the perceptual field

• Behavior is more strongly attributed to internal causes, while ignoring external causes

• E.g. negative behavior is generally attributed to “bad character” of the actor– This effect is much stronger when actor

belongs to an “outgroup”.

Attribution (Pettigrew/ Winkel 1987)

In-group (member

exhibits:)

Out-group (member

exhibits:)

Positive

Behavior

Negative

Behavior

Positive

Behavior

Negative

Behavior

Internal

Cause

58% 2% 13% 32%

External

Cause

42% 98% 87% 68%

Challenges for opinion leaders• Preventing the formation of a social climate

characterized by fear and anger regarding “outgroup” members– Labeling terrorism in terms of a clash between

ingroup and outgroup civilizations has a dramatic impact on cohesion

– Prevention of anger driven behavior• Communication should be focused on group

similarity (versus dissimilarity: send all Moroccans back to Turkey) and common / superordinate goals– Dissimilarity focused communication merely results in

enhanced anomie, and the formation of out-group victims (Winkel, 1987)