Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2006, Page 20
Are Terrorists Cultists?
Arthur A. Dole, Ph.D., ABPP
Emeritus Professor, Psychology in Education
University of Pennsylvania
Abstract
Are terrorists cultists? Or, are cultists terrorists? To open exploration of these
questions within a speculative framework, I begin by examining the
definitions of basic terms, relying heavily on previous analyses by Dole and
by Langone, Stout, Lifton, Zimbardo, and others. After a review of extremely
harmful acts by terrorists and cultists since 2001, I discuss how often, for
what purposes, and under what circumstances such groups use violence. As
examples I select two terrorist groups and two cultic groups and compare
them on selected abusive and beneficial characteristics, using a modified
version of the Group Psychological Abuse Scale as a rough yardstick. I then
discuss possible counter actions appropriate to some of the similarities and
differences among cultists and terrorists. What research is needed to support
prevention and control? Can aspects of exit consultation or other methods of
behavioral control be applied to members of terrorist groups? When, if at all,
might soft power or constructive action in the spirit of Martin Luther King be
effective? I conclude that some but not all terrorists are similar in their
dynamics to cultists and that many cultists are not similar to terrorists.
Are terrorists cultists? Or, are cultists terrorists? To explore these questions within a
speculative framework, I will review and update portions of a chapter in The Psychology of
Terrorism (Stout, 2002) that I prepared in the fall of 2001 just after the bombings of
September 11. I then compare two terrorist and two cultic groups.
Terrorist
After examining various definitions of "Terrorist," I concluded (Dole, 2001, p.213):
As Michael Kinsley (2001) has written, defining terrorism is essential it's
also impossible. I propose to use to use the term terrorist in the following
sense: Given a conflict, a terrorist is an extremely hostile opponent.
Current usage among coalition countries tends to define terrorist as anyone who harms
noncombatants. Such thinking demonizes without accounting for variations and distinctions.
Thus, by this definition, Basque separatists, Moroccan bombers, Hezbollah, Saddam
Hussein, and the bin Laden suicide gang are all terrorists. A Spaniard or American may be
tempted to overlook that each group may have very different histories, customs, purposes,
grievances, and methods. Events since 9/11 have not changed my view that calling an
opponent a terrorist without amplification interferes with the resolution of a particular
conflict, whether by military or diplomatic means. Thus although Saddam could be called a
terrorist and a tyrant, he was not responsible for the suicide attacks on the United States
(9/11 Report, 2004).
Suicide attacks and other murderous assaults are not new as methods in all kinds of
warfare including insurgency they have been used for centuries. See also Stout (2002) for
a wide variety of views about terrorism.
Cultist
In 2002 (Dole, 2002) I wrote that cultist (cult member) is also a tricky term. Lawyers,
sociologists, and theologians among others apply different meanings. As a psychologist, I

Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2006, Page 21
found the definitions of Beit-Hallahmi (1993) and Rosedale and Langone (1998) most
useful. In the present paper I propose to rely also on the wording of the recent ICSA
definition (ICSA, 2005) of cult proposed by Rutgers sociologist Benjamin Zablocki and
commented upon by Rosedale and Langone:
An ideological organization held together by charismatic relationships and
demanding total commitment." Charisma refers to a spiritual power or
personal quality that gives leaders influence or authority over large numbers
of people. Hence a cult is characterized by an ideology, strong demands
issuing from that ideology, and powerful processes of social-psychological
influence to induce group members to meet those demands. This high-
demand leader-centered social climate places such groups at risk of
exploiting and injuring members, although they may remain benign, if
leadership doesn't abuse its power.
In my opinion the expression ―cultist (or cult)‖ is not necessarily pejorative. A cultist may or
may not be harmful or harmless, a victim or beneficiary. A cult leader may be responsible
and ethical or a criminal who is dangerous to his followers and/or the public.
Mind Control
In the weeks after 9/11 many cult specialists wondered whether or not suicide bombers
were under mind control as described by Lifton (1961) and Zimbardo (1996). At that time I
suggested (Dole, 2001, p. 214) that:
Abusive religious, political, and other groups. ..{apply )deception, intensive
persuasion, covert hypnotic techniques, and extreme flattery to recruit
converts. They control devotees through confession, induced guilt, a totalistic
organization, and absolute adherence to a theology or dogma. The
individual's freedom is sharply reduced ...The leaders have control of the
recruit's environment.
Of the flood of articles and books published in the last six years that address the question of
intensive social influence I will mention briefly work by psychiatrist Robert J. Lifton (2000),
social psychologist Anthony Stahelski (2005), and sociologist Janja Lalich (2004a 2004b).
In Destroying the World to Save it, Lifton (2000) tells the terrible tale of Aum Shinrikyo.
When the guru, Asahara, and his followers released Sarin gas in Japan's subways they
believed that global destruction, fear, and chaos would lead to a wonderful world. In short,
terror was essential.
Lalich (2004) compared the Democratic Workers Party, a small radical political cult led by a
charismatic woman, with Heaven‘s Gate. The leaders of Heaven‘s Gate offered their
followers a transcendent vision, an ideal world beyond planet Earth that they could attain by
the ultimate self-sacrifice. Lalich's theory of bounded choice stresses the complexity of the
interactions among group members and the power of charisma.
Stahelski (2005) proposes a social psychological conditioning theory to explain how
terrorists are created by cultic groups. Within a context of group dynamics he posits five
phases of conditioning: depluralization, self-deindividuation, other-deindividuation,
dehumanization, and demonization.
My conclusion given present knowledge is that how groups and their leaders control the
behavior, cognitions, and emotions of insiders and outsiders is immensely complex and
varied.