Gruesomeness conveys formidability: Perpetrators of gratuitously grisly acts are conceptualized as larger, stronger, and more likely to win

Terrorism as Coalitional Predation: Explaining Definitional Ambiguities and Precautionary Responses

Terrorism continues to be an enigmatic and contested concept, lacking a universally accepted definition despite extensive scholarly debate. Lay intuitions, however, demonstrate a notable convergence in identifying acts as "terrorism" when specific situational features are present, such as indiscriminate violence and out-group perpetration. These features elicit predictable and robust precautionary responses, raising the question: Is there a unified and parsimonious explanation for these phenomena? It is hypothesized that a situational template exists in the human mind, the coalitional predation template (CPT), which evolved not to detect modern-day terrorism, per se, but to identify and respond to situations of predatory coalitional conflict. The paper examines the potential cues and mechanisms that constitute the psychological systems activated by such threats, suggesting that matching the input cues of the CPT triggers well-documented precautionary responses to terrorism. However, this cue-based system may not align neatly with contemporary threats, leading to disproportionate responses to some threats while underestimating others. The model also posits that interpretations of violence can vary due to incomplete cues and the social position of the evaluator, leading to public disagreements and inconsistencies in defining terrorism. Consequently, arriving at an unambiguous and widely accepted definition of terrorism may not be possible. The model presented may account for a range of phenomena, including the inclination towards attributing mental illness to particular violent incidents and the uncanny surface similarities between terrorism and war crimes. The findings have significant implications for both the theoretical understanding of terrorism and practical policy responses.

Spiritual over physical formidability determines willingness to fight and sacrifice through loyalty in cross-cultural populations

Across 11 studies involving six countries from four continents (n = 3,285), we extend insights from field investigations in conflict zones to offline and online surveys to show that personal spiritual formidability—the conviction and immaterial resources (values, strengths of beliefs, character) of a person to fight—is positively associated with the will to fight and sacrifice for others. The physical formidability of groups in conflict has long been promoted as the primary factor in human decisions to fight or flee in times of conflict. Here, studies in Spain, Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, and Morocco reveal that personal spiritual formidability, a construct distinct from religiosity, is more strongly associated with the willingness to fight and make costly self-sacrifices for the group than physical formidability. A follow-on study among cadets of the US Air Force Academy further indicates that this effect is mediated by a stronger loyalty to the group, a finding replicated in a separate study with a European sample. The results demonstrate that personal spiritual formidability is a primary determinant of the will to fight across cultures, and this individual-level factor, propelled by loyal bonds made with others, disposes citizens and combatants to fight at great personal risk.