Amy M. Doughten Queens University of Charlotte Author … · socioeconomically disadvantaged youth. Cult Group Structure Although cults may differ in size and ideology, researchers

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].

GANGS, CULTS, AND TERRORIST GROUPS: DIFFERENCES AND SIMILARITIES 2

Abstract

The belief that the power of identity and group dynamics is the same between gangs, cults, and

terrorist groups may influence both psychological treatment and legal approaches to prevention

strategies. However, it appears that these groups have fundamental differences in structure,

behavior, and cognitive processing. Compelling reasons exist against drawing firm parallels

between all three groups: lack of empirical and generalizable data and important differences in

group structure. Some similarities do exist in the individual experiences of group members. 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. This field of

study presents both enormous challenges and research opportunities to the social psychologist.

The inherent difficulties of obtaining specific measurable data from individuals in these groups

must be acknowledged and addressed before strong recommendations for standardized

psychological treatment and legal approaches to prevention strategies can be made with any level

of confidence.

Keywords: differences in gangs, cults, and terrorist groups, group dynamics in gangs,

cults and terrorist groups, similarities in gangs, cults, and terrorist groups, need to belong


Differences and Similarities Between Gangs, Cults, and Terrorist Groups

Gangs, cults, and terrorist groups appear to share some similarities in group function and

leadership. The belief that the power of identity and group dynamics is the same between groups

may influence both psychological treatment and legal approaches to prevention strategies.

However, it appears that these groups have fundamental differences in structure, behavior, and

cognitive processing. Successful strategies must recognize the unique characteristics of each

group and individual dynamic.

This paper is divided into several sections. The first section examines gang group

structure and individual member profiles. The second section discusses cultic structure and

member dynamics. The third section reviews recent literature on terrorist groups and the social-

psychological tendencies of individual terrorists. The final two sections discuss the similarities

and differences between the three groups.

Gang Group Structure

Most researchers use a standard set of criteria to define a group as a gang (Howell, Egley,

& O'Donnell, 2012). Criteria include age range (typically 12-24), a shared identity evidenced by

symbols and a gang name, a level of permanence and organization to the group, and increased

criminal activity levels.

Gang activity is of interest to law enforcement agencies as criminal activity appears to be

increasing. Data from the U.S. Department of Justice National Youth Gang Survey (2009)

indicates that gang activity within the U.S. experienced resurgence from 2001 to 2005. Gang

activity showed annual increases for each of the subsequent four years, with an estimated 28,100

gangs active in 2009.


Law enforcement, tasked with maintaining social order, continues to focus on reducing

gang related activity, resulting in a wealth of research centering on criminological factors. Less

research has been done to examine the psychological processes that may be involved in both

joining and staying in a gang.

Attempts to define “gangs” can be found in literature going back to 1927. Rather than

having a homogeneous origin, gangs form for a variety of reasons, including the search for

racial, ethnic, religious or class group identity. This variety in origin makes it difficult for

researchers to agree on an operational definition for gangs. Therefore, Hagedorn (2005) points

out that, unlike the legal definitions used by law enforcement, many researchers exclude

criminality as a defining characteristic of gangs.

He argues that gangs are not an American phenomenon. Since most gang growth is

occurring in Latin America, Africa, and Asia, research must reflect this global context. Gangs

that form in direct response to government policies may function differently than gangs that are

criminally oriented and may reflect a different membership profile. Assumptions that all gangs

operate in the same manner and attract the same type of individual may be why some federally

funded studies attempt to link gangs with terrorist groups although there are distinct differences

in the two groups (Hagedorn, 2005).

In a global context, rather than forming around criminal activity, some gangs may form

when unsupervised youth develop a type of resistance identity as a reaction to uncertain futures

and as a defense against conflict with authority and culture (Hagedorn, 2005).

The theory of resistance identity is part of a larger sociological concept of identity

developed by Manuel Castells (1997). As the world becomes more intertwined, certain groups

are marginalized and perceive that they are oppressed culturally or by political authority. Thus


some gangs may form as a result of resistance identity as marginalized groups find ways to cope

with oppression or marginalization.

Some of these gangs institutionalize – in other words, the gang forms an organization

complex enough to withstand leadership changes. Once institutionalized, the gang can adapt to

changing environments, fulfill some community needs (providing security or even economic

support), and it develops a distinct identity that includes various rituals and symbols.

Institutionalized gangs that form as a result of resistance identity, especially in reaction to

perceived ethnic, political, religious or socioeconomic oppression, are unlikely to be eliminated

through force (Hagedorn, 2005).

Street gangs that reflect delinquent or criminal behavior appear to have a different

psychological make-up than gangs formed as a result of resistance identity. Rather than

perceiving an institutionalized form of oppression, street gangs may form when members do not

have strong societal or familial interaction. Thus, street gang formation may reflect interactional

theory (Thornberry, 1987).

Interactional theory combines control theory (deviance results when bonds to society

weaken) and social learning theory (delinquency is not inherent but is learned). The relationship

between an individual and his/her social structures may provide an environment where

delinquency can thrive. Researchers were unable to determine if street gang membership is

predicated by antisocial behavior or if gang involvement facilitates delinquency. Street gang

membership appears to be relatively fluid; individuals switch gang allegiance or leave gang life

(Thornberry, Krohn, Lizotte, Smith, & Tobin, 2003).

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


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).


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


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).


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


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


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


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


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.


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.


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


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.


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


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.


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).


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


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


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.


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.


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

counter-terrorism (pp. 19-33) Oxon, UK: Routledge.

Castells, M. (1997). The information age: Economy, society and culture (Volume 2: The Power

of Identity). Malden, MA: Blackwell

Burke, Ph.D., J. (2006). Antisocial personality disorder in cult leaders and induction of

dependent personality disorder in cult members. Cultic Studies Review, 5, 390-410.

Retrieved from

http://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_articles/burke_john_apd_csr05.3a_abs.htm

Burks, R. (2002). Cognitive impairment in thought reform environments (Unpublished doctoral

dissertation). Ohio University, Ohio.

Centner, C.M. (2003). Cults and terrorism: Similarities and differences. Cultic Studies Review,

2(2). Retrieved from

http://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_articles/centner_christophere_cultsandterrorism_abs.

htm

Crenshaw, M. (2000). The psychology of terrorism: An agenda for the 21st century. Political

Psychology, 21(2) 405-220.

Dole, A.A., (2006). Are terrorists cultists? Cultic Studies Review, 5, 198-218. Retrieved from

http://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_articles/dole_arthur_areterroristscultists_abs.htm


Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Gottschalk, M., Gottschalk, S. (2004). Authoritarianism and pathological hatred: A social

psychological profile of the Middle Eastern terrorist. The American Sociologist, 35(2),

38-59.

Hagedorn, J.M. (2005). The global impact of gangs. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice,

21, 153-169. doi: 10.1177/1043986204273390

Hassan, S. (2000). Releasing the bonds: Empowering people to think for themselves. Boston:

Aitan Company.

Howell, J. C., Egley, A., & O'Donnell, C. (2012). Frequently asked questions about gangs.

Retrieved from National Gang Center website:

http://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/About/FAQ

Knox, G. (1999). A comparison of cults and gangs: Dimensions of coercive power and

malevolent authority. Journal of Gang Research, 6(4), 1-39.

Krueger,A. B., & Maleckova, J. (2002). Education, poverty, political violence, and terrorism: Is

there a connection? (Working Paper No. w9074). National Bureau of Economic

Research. Retrieved from: http://papers.nber.org/papers/w9074

Lahey, B.B., Gordon, R.A., Loeber, R., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., & Farrington, D.P. (1999) Boys

who join gangs: A prospective study of predictors of first gang entry. Journal of

Abnormal Child Psychology, 27, 261-276. doi: 0091-0627/99/0800-0261

Lifton, R. J. (1989). Thought reform and the psychology of totalism: A study of “brainwashing"

in China. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.


Miller, L. (2006). The terrorist mind: II. Typologies, psychopathologies, and practical guidelines

for investigation. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative

Criminology, 50(3), 255-268. doi: 10.1177/0306624X05281406

Persinger, M. (1983). Religious and mystical experiences as artefacts of temporal lobe function:

A general hypothesis. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 57, 1255-1262. doi:

10.2466/pms.1983.57.3f.1255

Pinizzotto, A. J., Davis, E. F., & Miller III, C. E. (2007). Street-gang mentality. FBI Law

Enforcement Bulletin, 76, 1-7.

Post, J. M. (2004). Leaders and their followers in a dangerous world. Ithaca, NY: Cornell

University Press.

Post, J. M. (2007). The mind of the terrorist. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Robins, R. S., Post, J. M. (1997). Political paranoia: The psychopolitics of hatred. New Haven,

CT: Yale University Press.

Rodriguez-Carballeira, A., Martin-Pena, J., Almendros, C., Escartin., J. Porrua, C. & Bertacco,

M. (2010). A psychosocial analysis of the terrorist group as a cult. International Journal

of Cultic Studies, 1(1), 54-66. Retrieved from

http://icsahome.com/idx_topics.asp?Subject=A+Psychosocial+Analysis+of+the+Terrorist

+Group+As+a+Cult

Sageman, M. (2004). Understanding terror networks. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania

Press.

Silke, A. (2001). The devil you know: Continuing problems with research on terrorism.

Terrorism and Political Violence, 13(4), 1-14. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09546550109609697


Thornberry, T.P. (1987). Toward an interactional theory of delinquency. Criminology, 25, 863–

891. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.1987.tb00823.x

Thornberry, T.P., Krohn, M.D., Lizotte, A.J., Smith, C.A., Tobin, K. (2003). Gangs and

delinquency in developmental perspective. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge

University Press.

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention. (2011). Highlights of the 2009 national youth gang survey

(Juvenile Justice Fact Sheet) Retrieved from

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/233581.pdf

Victoroff, J. (2005). The mind of the terrorist: A review and critique of psychological

approaches. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 49(1), 3-42. doi: 10.1177/0022002704272040

Documents

Amy M. Doughten Queens University of Charlotte Author … · socioeconomically disadvantaged youth. Cult Group Structure Although cults may differ in size and ideology, researchers