Abstract

For the past 40 years, researchers studied the relationship between mental disorder and terrorist involvement. The literature developed in 4 paradigms, each of which differs in terms of their empirical evidence, the specific mental disorders studied, and their conceptualizations of terrorist involvement. These paradigms have not, however, witnessed linear and incremental improvements upon 1 another. Although 1 paradigm has generally tended to dominate a temporal period, many false assumptions and incorrect interpretations of earlier work permeate into today’s discourse. This article provides a history of the study of mental disorders and the terrorist. First, we briefly outline the core fundamental principles of the first 2 paradigms, The article then outlines the core arguments produced by the seminal reviews conducted in Paradigm 3. We highlight how these findings were consistently misinterpreted in subsequent citations. We then highlight recent innovations in the study of terrorism and mental disorder since the various influential literature reviews of 1997–۲۰۰۵٫ We conclude by outlining how future research in this area may improve in the coming years by broadening our understanding of both terrorist involvement and psychopathology away from simple dichotomous thinking.

Introduction

The study of mental disorders’ relationship with terrorist engagement spans over 40 years. It experienced four paradigms of conceptual and empirical development. During this time, the explanatory emphasis of mental illness lurched from the center of psychological enquiry to the periphery. For example, many early studies posited specific mental disorders as causal (Cooper, 1978; Pearce, 1977). Decades later, many studies not only rejected earlier causal assumptions but also downplayed the presence of mental disorders among terrorists in the first place (Abrahms, 2011; Post, 2005, 2007; Sher & Rice, 2015). Small seeds of work recently found a middle ground where mental disorders are just one factor among many but not for all terrorists everywhere.

These four paradigms differed from one another in terms of their empirical evidence, the specific mental disorders studied, and their conceptualizations of terrorist involvement. It would be incorrect, however, to characterize these four paradigms of development as linear and incremental improvements upon one another. Instead, many false assumptions and incorrect interpretations of earlier work permeate into today’s discourse. In other cases, the incorrect assumptions of earlier paradigms of work still linger. Although one paradigm has generally tended to dominate a temporal period, overlaps are common. Lacking in empirical evidence, the first paradigm offered psychopathy as a cause of terrorist involvement. It focused upon individual drives and characterized terrorist involvement as a yes/no dichotomy (e.g., a subject was either a terrorist or not). The second paradigm instead turned the psychopathological focus away from psychopathy toward specific personality types.