Terrorism, anomie, and a weakened social fabric: the formation of collateral outgroup victims

1. Terrorism, anomie, and a weakened social fabric:the formation of collateral outgroup victims Frans Willem Winkel Intervict (Psychological Victimology Program), Tilburg University f.w.winkel@uvt.nl

2. 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

3. 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)

4. 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

5. 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 Psycholo­gical 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.

6. (Amir’s) Contact hypothesis • Enhanced social cohesion, • Mutual understanding • Harmonic interactions Favorable Conditions Inter Group Contact • Enhanced anomie, • Mutual prejudice • Disharmonic interactions • Weakened social fabric Unfavorable Conditions Terrorism, and triggered Psychological Mechanisms

7. 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

8. Unfavorable conditions: …. • Terrorism from a mass- communication perspective & • Psychological mechanisms triggered in recipients

9. 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 Terrorism from a (mass) communication - perspective Anomie: weakened social fabric

10. 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

11. 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”.

12. Attribution (Pettigrew/ Winkel 1987)

13. 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)