International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 1, No. 1, 2010 51
continued use of violence to achieve other
objectives by means of harm and terror caused
among the population, as is also indicated by De
la Corte, Sabucedo, and Moreno (2004). Terror,
uncertainty, insecurity, and the multiple costs,
which lead the general public and governments
to deal with and avert these issues, is the
seedbed with which terrorists attempt to force
changes in their favour (McCauley, 2007).
Meanwhile, terrorists use violence in addition as
a means to continue the current relevance of and
publicity for their own objectives and values (De
la Corte, Kruglanski, De Miguel, Sabucedo, and
Díaz, 2007). In this sense, terrorism can be
distinguished from mere acts of criminal
violence in that the direct victims of terrorism
are frequently not the ultimate objective of their
violence (Schmid, 2005): their objective is
collective intimidation (Bandura, 2006).
In this respect, the debate surrounding terrorism
as a syndrome or as an instrument or strategy
can be practically considered as closed as there
is no significant support to the hypothesis that it
can be a result of some form of specific casual
syndrome (a focus that is more of a clinical or
pathological type), whether this is linked to
psychological disorders or certain specific social
factors although, of course, there are diverse
social conditions that can act in each case and
act in fact as contributing or facilitating factors
for the development of terrorism (Kruglanski
and Fishman, 2006).
At this point, if we continue the typology of
aggressive behaviour suggested by Krahé
(2001), we can state that both cults and terrorist
groups are characterised by the use of a violence
of an instrumental type (as a means to achieving
other ends) and not a hostile type (as an end in
itself). In the case of cults the violence or abuse
is principally of a psychological type, which is
exercised in order to achieve the submission of
its followers (Almendros, Carrobles, Rodríguez-
Carballeira, and Jansà, 2004), while terrorism is
of a physical and also a psychological type, and
is aimed especially at those considered to be the
exterior enemy. Another difference is that
terrorist violence is chiefly direct and visible,
while that of cults, being of a psychological
type, is usually less direct and visible, when not
clearly indirect and concealed. An element that
helps to understand this difference is the
objective desired, which in the case of terrorists
has a somewhat more specific character, while
that of cults is often of a transcendent character
and of abstract dimensions, which are difficult to
evaluate.
The objective to be achieved by the terrorist
group is often of a political character, with the
aim of making, by means of its actions, the
governing powers accede to its demands. In the
case of a cult, the objective is to impose its
system of beliefs and everything that these
entail, understanding that this ideological-
doctrinal system may differ greatly in each
person in content, form, means, time, and the
aggressiveness with which its implementation is
sought. The common point in both cases is that
the achievement of its objectives lies in
managing to dominate the rest, whether these are
political institutions, citizens, or both.
Domination over the rest is considered because
what is involved is an exercise of influence that
is supported by the use of force and coercion, to
different degrees, in order to bring about a
change or social transformation.
Factors Facilitating Bonding to the Group
This section looks at the different factors of a
personal nature that can facilitate the bonding of
a person to cults and terrorist groups, a bonding
in which other factors of a group nature can also
interact (which will be analysed further on),
together with those of the specific environment
or social context (for a more complete analysis,
see De la Corte, 2006, on terrorism, and
Rodríguez-Carballeira, 1992, on cults). A
similar structure of three blocks of variables is
proposed by Taylor and Horgan (2006) in their
study on the psychological process of the
development of the terrorist, although they give
less importance to the terrorist group.
A commonly accepted idea is that bonding to
these groups requires a long-term process that
goes through several stages in which
components of a psychological and social nature
are involved. It is understood that the process
ends in the creation of an activist who is fully
devoted to the group. However, possible forms
of partial activism should also be considered. In
the case of cults, it is easier for highly diverse
continued use of violence to achieve other
objectives by means of harm and terror caused
among the population, as is also indicated by De
la Corte, Sabucedo, and Moreno (2004). Terror,
uncertainty, insecurity, and the multiple costs,
which lead the general public and governments
to deal with and avert these issues, is the
seedbed with which terrorists attempt to force
changes in their favour (McCauley, 2007).
Meanwhile, terrorists use violence in addition as
a means to continue the current relevance of and
publicity for their own objectives and values (De
la Corte, Kruglanski, De Miguel, Sabucedo, and
Díaz, 2007). In this sense, terrorism can be
distinguished from mere acts of criminal
violence in that the direct victims of terrorism
are frequently not the ultimate objective of their
violence (Schmid, 2005): their objective is
collective intimidation (Bandura, 2006).
In this respect, the debate surrounding terrorism
as a syndrome or as an instrument or strategy
can be practically considered as closed as there
is no significant support to the hypothesis that it
can be a result of some form of specific casual
syndrome (a focus that is more of a clinical or
pathological type), whether this is linked to
psychological disorders or certain specific social
factors although, of course, there are diverse
social conditions that can act in each case and
act in fact as contributing or facilitating factors
for the development of terrorism (Kruglanski
and Fishman, 2006).
At this point, if we continue the typology of
aggressive behaviour suggested by Krahé
(2001), we can state that both cults and terrorist
groups are characterised by the use of a violence
of an instrumental type (as a means to achieving
other ends) and not a hostile type (as an end in
itself). In the case of cults the violence or abuse
is principally of a psychological type, which is
exercised in order to achieve the submission of
its followers (Almendros, Carrobles, Rodríguez-
Carballeira, and Jansà, 2004), while terrorism is
of a physical and also a psychological type, and
is aimed especially at those considered to be the
exterior enemy. Another difference is that
terrorist violence is chiefly direct and visible,
while that of cults, being of a psychological
type, is usually less direct and visible, when not
clearly indirect and concealed. An element that
helps to understand this difference is the
objective desired, which in the case of terrorists
has a somewhat more specific character, while
that of cults is often of a transcendent character
and of abstract dimensions, which are difficult to
evaluate.
The objective to be achieved by the terrorist
group is often of a political character, with the
aim of making, by means of its actions, the
governing powers accede to its demands. In the
case of a cult, the objective is to impose its
system of beliefs and everything that these
entail, understanding that this ideological-
doctrinal system may differ greatly in each
person in content, form, means, time, and the
aggressiveness with which its implementation is
sought. The common point in both cases is that
the achievement of its objectives lies in
managing to dominate the rest, whether these are
political institutions, citizens, or both.
Domination over the rest is considered because
what is involved is an exercise of influence that
is supported by the use of force and coercion, to
different degrees, in order to bring about a
change or social transformation.
Factors Facilitating Bonding to the Group
This section looks at the different factors of a
personal nature that can facilitate the bonding of
a person to cults and terrorist groups, a bonding
in which other factors of a group nature can also
interact (which will be analysed further on),
together with those of the specific environment
or social context (for a more complete analysis,
see De la Corte, 2006, on terrorism, and
Rodríguez-Carballeira, 1992, on cults). A
similar structure of three blocks of variables is
proposed by Taylor and Horgan (2006) in their
study on the psychological process of the
development of the terrorist, although they give
less importance to the terrorist group.
A commonly accepted idea is that bonding to
these groups requires a long-term process that
goes through several stages in which
components of a psychological and social nature
are involved. It is understood that the process
ends in the creation of an activist who is fully
devoted to the group. However, possible forms
of partial activism should also be considered. In
the case of cults, it is easier for highly diverse
