Psychological Studies (June 2010) 55(2):177–179 177

©
National Academy of Psychology (NAOP) India Psychological Studies (June 2010) 55(2):177–179
BOOK REVIEW
The Psychology of Strategic Terrorism: Public and Government
Responses to Attack

Authored by: Ben Sheppard

2009, Routledge, Oxon
xiv + 248 pp, Pounds 70, Hardbound

Received: 5 February 2010 / Accepted: 19 April 2010

How terrific is terrorism? The term ‘terrorism’ per se highlights the significance of panic and fear generated in
public, consequent to the terrorist attacks. Panic prone public force the state to accede to the unscrupulous
demands of the non-state actors. Neumann and Smith (2005) described terrorism as ‘the creation of fear to
influence the political behavior of a given target group’, and is thus seen as a form of ‘coercive diplomacy’.
Freedman (2005) defined it as a two-stage process, ‘first, independent deliberate acts of violence, or threats of
violence against a populace, intended to produce a particular psychological effect - terror - on the assumption
that, second, this will influence the target’s whole political system through shifting its attitudes and behavior’.
However, Gearty (1996) rightly observed that ‘terrorism is a subject rife with moral certainty but shrouded in
terminological confusion’.
A multitude of research investigations have been conducted to understand the metaphysics and
epistemology of terrorism from military, political, psychological, sociological and anthropological
perspectives. Research from each perspective is exclusive wherein inter-disciplinary approach is discarded in
light of the methodological constraints pertaining to the quantification of the terror generated by terrorism.
Wilkinson (1990) observed that, “quantifying the terror of terrorism is a complex issue because of its
subjectivity- a possible reason to why other commentators have not focused on the fear and anxiety of
terrorism”. For instance, behavioral science focuses on the human element of terrorism, thus surpassing the
political and international scenario, and vice-versa. Over all, such researches undermine grading the terror of
terrorism from the collective viewpoint of a behavioral as well as a political scientist. There have been very
few attempts to incorporate psychology of victims in international relations. Some such works include Morris
and Hoe’s book titled Terrorism: Threat and Responses (1988), Lambert’s The Psychology of Airpower
(1995), Sharma’s Victims of Terrorism (2003) and Neumann and Smith’s The Strategy of Terrorism (2008).
Nevertheless, all these scholarly works lack empirical data to quantify the psychological consequences of
terrorism along with a detailed analysis of mediating factors.
The present book attempts to calibrate the psychological impact of terrorism in light of the public and
government responses to such attacks. It seeks to comprehend the target’s behavioral response through
understanding what type and degree of disorientation takes place, and how actions by a government (e.g. law
enforcement and public health authorities) may amplify or attenuate the terror of terrorism. In a distinctive
endeavour, Ben Sheppard has implemented an eclectic approach to the understanding of such an impact.
Through the case-study analyzes of five recent terrorist attacks, he has brought the arena of psychiatry,
psychology (risk-analysis) and international relations together as an aid to comprehending the impact of
terrorism. Unique to his work is the inclusion of ‘risk-analysis’ in understanding the people’s perceptions and
responses to terrorism. Five assumptions have been framed and investigated during the process in order to
understand the short and long term effects of each terrorist attack.
The volume has been organised in nine chapters excluding the foreword by Lawrence Freedman, one of the
pioneers in the area of terrorism, and preface by the author. Chapters one to three introduce the various case
studies chosen for this work, the key disciplines under which each
 178 Psychological Studies (June 2010) 55(2):177–179
case study has been analyzed and the five assumptions that have been investigated. From chapter four to
eight, the five case studies – The 1991 Iraqi missile strikes against Israel, the 1995 Tokyo Sarin attack,
September 11 attacks, 2001 Anthrax attacks and the second Intifada are analysed. In each chapter, a case
study has been analyzed under eleven sub-themes as introduction, background, strategic and political
objectives, overview of the attack, political effect, effects of proximity and time, changes in behavior and
attitudes, risk communication, risk perceptions, risk amplification, and conclusion. In chapter nine, the five
key assumptions are re-examined and compared across case studies along with evidences from two further
studies of March 2004 Madrid train bombings and July 2005 London bombings. Also, contribution to the key
fields of Risk-analysis (Psychology), Psychiatry and International relations are highlighted coupled with
policy recommendations and concluding remarks.
Through chapters one to three, author has been justified in keeping the discussion people-centric rather
than attack-centric. Certainly, irrespective of the intensity of an attack, it is the public’s response to the attack
which assists in the proliferation of terrorists’ objectives. Also, it is reasonable to say that risk characterization
and communication by the governmental agencies mediates such responses to the attack. The support system
acts as an important factor in defining societal resilience. Perceptions and attitudes of the public to any
untoward incident are shaped by the media and the associated public agencies, which in turn are directed by
the political status of the nation. In such a scenario, social amplification of risk becomes an area of prime
interest in the study of terrorism. Additionally, the spatial and temporal factors associated with the victimized
public, as highlighted in the chapters, requires attention. For some of the attack victims it is the direct impact
while for some it is the vicarious impact that prunes their behavior. Overall, the primary assumptions hoisted
by the author in these three chapters and the mode of their examination using the psychometric paradigm, are
the key considerations for such a disaster to be managed.
Chapters four to eight uniquely highlight the five terrorist activities ranging from west to east of the globe.
The author deserves credit for encompassing such a wide plethora of cases while keeping his focus onto the
analysis of the psychological impact of such terrorist attacks, based on first-hand accounts. Such a wide-
ranging psychological risk- analysis is significant as it clearly differentiates between the impact of a
conventional and a non-conventional war on the public. Despite cultural variations, commonalities of such an
impact have also been highlighted. It reflects the generalizations in human behavior while understanding a
phenomenon and provides insight into devising modalities which can be uniformly understood and
implemented. Also, the encouraging role of governmental agencies in mitigating the threat responses has been
brought to the fore. It refurbishes the significance of an appropriate and a quick response, in terms of risk
characterization and communication by the government, in face of an attack.
In the concluding chapter, the author has substantially verified the assumptions introduced in the initial
chapters of the book. He has been successful in explaining that the public is not panic prone by nature but it is
the response by the support agencies that aggravates panic. It was witnessed that after 9/11 attacks, the
affirmative action by the government had considerably decreased the level of PTSD in public. While in the
Israeli Scud Missile attacks, the lack of information from the government sources aggravated the abuse of
medicines and increased panic in public. It clearly explicates that same individuals can be made to react
differently with different kind of support systems. Keeping this in view, policy recommendations to the
government agencies in response and recovery are crucial to reducing the human cost of strategic terror.
Author’s recommendations in the area of risk framing and mitigation by the public agencies are well-suited to
the need of the day.
Overall, the author has done a commendable job by getting in-sync the areas of political and behavioral
science in furtherance to understanding the terror of terrorism. This piece of work is unique in the following
aspects:
Adopting an eclectic approach for the a better understanding of the phenomenon of terrorism.
Empirically proving the psychological impact of a non-conventional war i.e. strategic terrorism on
the public through the lenses of ‘risk-analysis’.
Comprehensively studying the spatial and temporal factors of the attack associated with the
behavioral responses of the affected. The various attributions like ‘emotional adaptation’, ‘sociogenic
illness’ and ‘ceiling effect’ for certain behaviors of the target population have been well in place.
Providing an insight about the social amplification of risk. In the process, certain common
assumptions like ‘the public is panic prone and reacts impulsively in all situations’ are refuted. And, the
importance of the role of governmental agencies as a facilitator to the mitigation of terrorism risk, have
been highlighted.
Opening newer vistas of research into the area.Psychological Studies (June 2010) 55(2):177–179 179
 The volume would fully entice its readers who are trying to explore the forbidden area of
terrorism. Being inter-disciplinary in approach, would be well-suited for academia,
politicians, diplomats and lay readers as well, so as to strengthen their understanding in the
subject. And, the recommendations proposed in the three key areas of preparation, response
and recovery would provide useful insight into the emergency planning and policy of the
government for better preparedness against terrorism.

References

Gearty CA (1996). Terrorism. Aldershot, England: Dartmouth, p xi.

Lambert A (1995). The psychology of air power based on case studies since the 1940s.
London: RUSI.
Freedman L (2005). Strategic terror and amateur psychology. The Political Quarterly,
76(2):162.
Moris E & Hoe A (1988). Terrorism: Threat and response. London: Macmillan.
Neumann PR & Smith MLR (2005). Strategic terrorism: The framework and its fallacies.
The Journal of Strategic Studies, 28(4):577.
Neumann PR & Smith MLR (2008). The strategy of terrorism: How it works and why it
fails. Abingdon: Routledge.
Sharma DP (2003). Victims of terrorism. New Delhi: APH Publi-shing Corporation.
Wilkinson P (1990). Terrorist targets and tactics: New risks to world order. Conflict
Studies, 236:1.
Nidhi Maheshwari
Strategic Behaviour Division
Defence Institute of Psychological Research
Delhi - 110054
nidhi78_m@yahoo.co.in