What does terrorism mean to you?

Banner used by FBI. Image in public domain, from Wikimedia Commons..

Before proceeding, write your own definition of “terrorism.” Then you can compare it with other definitions from ordinary people from over 40 countries around the world who responded to the Group on International Perspectives on Governmental Aggression and Peace (GIPGAP) survey.

This study revealed that “terrorism,” like “war,” is defined in many different ways, but those definitions fall into several major thematic categories.

Some definitions focus on perceived causes or motivations for terrorism:

  • “People who fight for idealism
  • Last resort in getting global response: e.g. Palestine, N. Ireland”
  • An expression of senseless rage against innocent people to get a point across”

Another group of definitions focus on the methods or processes of terrorism:

  • “it is a kind of weapon used by anti-social elements”
  • “violently attack someone or something outside the bounds of normal warfare”

Some definitions focus on the outcomes of terrorism:

  • When innocent people die because of someone else’s beliefs, either political or religious”
  • Activities linked to physical, economic and psychological damage
  • “It is what destroys peace.”

A final prominent theme involves value judgments concerning the nature of terrorism:

  • Unacceptable way of reaching your goal, kind of illness”
  • “Barbarism”
  • “An insidious irrational cowardly style of murder”

What do you think of these definitions? Does your definition fall into one of these thematic categories? Would you change your definition in any way now that you have seen these definitions?

In our earlier post on definitions of war, we ended with several questions about gender differences in types of definitions. The answers to these questions varied by geographical and cultural context.

For example, women from English-speaking countries (the U.S., the U.K., Canada, and Australia) were more likely than men from those countries to make moral judgments concerning war, whereas men from those countries focused more on criteria for calling a conflict a war. Women from Latin America were significantly more likely than Latin American men to refer to concrete outcomes of war in their definitions.

Are any of these differences surprising to you?

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology

How would you define war?

Before you read this article, please write down your own definition of war.

Mural of siege warfare. Genghis Khan Exhibit
Mural of siege warfare. Genghis Khan Exhibit, San Jose Tech Museum, 2010. By Bill Taroli, used under CC Attribution 2.0 Generic license, from Wikimedia Commons.

Then you can learn about the major types of definitions provided by respondents to the Personal and Institutional Rights to Aggression and Peace Survey (PAIRTAPS) as administered by the Group on Perspectives on Governmental Aggression and Peace (GIPGAP).

Collected from more than 40 countries around the world, the definitions of war fall into five major categories:

  1. definitions identifying war with conflict (dictionary types of definitions)
  2. definitions focusing on the presumed causes of war
  3. definitions specifying particular criteria that were necessary to label particular events as constituting a war
  4. definitions focusing on the outcomes of war, and
  5. moral judgments concerning the nature of war.

Here are some of the definitions of war provided by people from around the world. Decide which of the five categories of definition each one represents:

  • “When all people die and you find no food, land is taken and destroyed.”
  • “Violent response to an aggressor nation.”
  • “Killing unnecessarily.”
  • “Armed conflict between states or nations.”
  • “Repeated and prolonged attacks of force by one country upon another.”

Now consider your own definition. Which category would it fall into?

We found a range of responses in how men and women from different regions defined war and categorized those definitions.

Which sex do you think was more likely to provide definitions that were essentially moral judgments on war?

Which sex do you think was more likely to provide definitions focusing on outcomes of war?

Which sex do you think focused more on the specific qualifications for calling something a war?

Watch for an upcoming post that provides the answer to these and other questions about our findings.  

Kathie Malley-Morrison

Violating human rights agreements

The United States’ “War on Terror” and involvement in Iraq have renewed questions concerning human rights agreements and international treaties. Do nations ever have the right to violate or ignore these agreements? What conditions are seen as justifying a breech? These were the questions addressed in a study by GIPGAP in 2005.

Declaration of Human Rights, French painting
Declaration of Human Rights, France 1789. Image in public domain.

A sample of 518 participants (253 females and 218 males), at least 20 percent of whom were college students, completed the Personal and Institutional Rights to Aggression and Peace Scale (PAIRTAPS), which includes the following item: “Sometimes a country has the right to ignore international treaties or international human rights agreements.”

Participants were asked to indicate on a scale from 1 (totally disagree) to 7 (totally agree) the extent to which they agreed with the statement, and then to explain the reasoning behind their rating scale score.

Analyses revealed that most participants could be divided into two groups:

  • Opposers—i.e., respondents who argued that governments do not have the right to violate or ignore agreements
  • Justifiers—i.e., participants who argued governments sometimes do have such a right.

Of the 518 respondents, significantly more opposed violations than justified them, but opposers and justifiers used the same types of arguments to support their positions.

For example, both opposers and justifiers appealed to characteristics of treaties to justify their scores, with opposers arguing that agreements should be respected and justifiers arguing that agreements could be ignored if they were impractical, obsolete, or unjust.

Similarly, both opposers and justifiers emphasized the positive effects and the greater good that would come from adopting their position. For instance, one opposer wrote “These treaties are for the greater good of mankind,” while one justifier wrote “Sometimes you have to ignore your morals for the good of mankind.”

What do you think about these findings? Can you think of other situations where people argue passionately in favor of two opposing positions using the exact same type of argument—e.g., “My way is more moral/more intelligent/more practical, etc. than yours”?

Why might this be? What might be done to help opponents get beyond endless debate?

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology

Note: This post is based on the study “Attitudes toward international treaties and human rights agreements” by Kyleen Hashim and  Kathleen Malley-Morrison, published in the journal Peace Psychology, Spring/Summer 2007.