Describe and critically evaluate psychological theory and research on the phenomenon
of lone wolf terrorism.
Joshua Huddlestone
Following the attempted bombing of the Liverpool Women’s Hospital by lone-wolf terrorist Emad al-
Swealmeen, two researchers at the University of Liverpool sought to answer the question “How big is
the threat of ‘lone-wolf terrorism’ in Britain?”. In an article written by Matt Hurst (2021) covering
their research we read, “Simplistic causal associations between terroristic acts of violence and an
individual’s mental health should be avoided” (Hurst, 2021). This is not the first time Psychologists
and Sociologists have thought this, multiple studies have sought to find the link between
psychological theories and models (outside of mental illness) and terrorism. This essay aims to use
case studies and scientific articles to describe and critically evaluate the potential explanations of lone
wolf terrorism using Attribution Theory and The Social Learning Theory.
Fundamental Attribution Theory states that there is a common tendency to underestimate the
influence of external factors on an individual's behaviour as most attribute the behaviour to said
individual, specifically their internal disposition (Cayirdag, 2011). This theory therefore can help us
understand common misbelief about terrorist’s motivation and reasoning. A study by Wallace (2019)
looked at how attribution theory influenced US citizens beliefs about reasons behind terrorist actions.
Wallace found that participants were far more likely to make internal attributions for terrorism than
external attributions; specific internal attributions included religious beliefs, hatred, and mental
illness. So how therefore can we use attribution theory to understand a lone-wolf terrorists actual
reasoning behind their behaviour. Simply put, we can’t; what we instead need to use is a criticism of
attribution theory called Actor-Observer Differences. This criticism of attribution theory,
hypothesised by Jones and Nisbett (1972), states that there is a bias in attribution where “actors
attribute their actions to situational requirements whereas observers attribute the same actions to
personal dispositions.” (Monson & Snyder, 1977).
In May 2009, lone-wolf terrorist Scott Roeder shot and killed abortion doctor George Tiller. Roeder
was strongly ‘pro-life', and therefore if the study by Wallace (2019) is true then the general populus
would see this and attribute blame to the internal factor of Roeder's beliefs and hatred. This event is
an example of Actor-Observer differences as Roeder believed strongly that it was the fault of external
factors: “Roeder admitted that he killed Tiller and compared an abortion to premeditated murder. He
said that the state of Kansas was to blame for the abortion "holocaust" through its law legalizing
abortions. "The blame of George Tiller's death lies more with the state of Kansas than with me," he
said. "George Tiller was their hit man."” (ABC News, 2010). The actor, Roeder, believed it was the
fault of the state of Kanas, observers believed it was the fault of his own hateful beliefs. This explains
not just motivation for terror but also ability to perform terrorist attacks, this bias toward external
attribution distances an individual from the inhumanity of their actions. In the case of Roedor he was
so confident that he was doing the right thing that in court he “read a lengthy statement in his own
defence” (ABC News, 2010).
What criticism could there be of Attribution Theory as a model to explain lone-wolf terrorism?
Firstly, it is a criticism of the model in itself which helps us understand terrorists' motivations.
Secondly, the study by Wallace (2019) and actions by Roedor are in themselves biased towards
western, specifically North American, culture as the study consisted of four-hundred US adults and
the real-world example took place in Kansas. The USA is an individualist culture, studies have shown
that attribution and attribution bias in collectivist cultures “emphasize the ways in which people are
interdependent and tend to make situational attributions.” (Norton, 2006). This therefore reverses the
roles of the actor and observer in collectivist cultures.
, Many lone-wolf terrorists perform acts of terror that replicate the ideology and behaviours of larger
terror groups such as ISIS and the IRA, and some even copy actions of other lone-wolf terrorists such
as the Unabomber. These are known as “copy-cat terrorists”. There actions could be explained by the
Social Learning Theory model of behaviour designed by Bandura (1973) which proposes that learning
occurs through observation and imitation. Individuals who are “copy-cat” lone-wolf terrorists are
often observing actions performed by others and imitating them. Pauwels & Schils (2014) conducted a
study applying the Social Learning Theory to political violence, “focusing on exposure to extremist
content through new social media (NSM) and controlling for key variables derived from rival
theories.” (Pauwels & Schils, 2014). The results showed that there is a significant link between
exposure to extremism on social media and self-reporter political violence. This doesn’t necessarily
show that the social learning theory can be a complete explanation for political violence or
extremist/terrorist actions amongst individuals. Instead, it is a partial explanation, as the impact of
exposure to extremism, “is mediated by real-world associations and that the offline world has to be
taken into account.” (Pauwels & Schils, 2014). They also found that, “The most persistent effects are
found for those measures where individuals actively seek out extremist content on the Internet, as
opposed to passive and accidental encounters” (Pauwels & Schils, 2014).
From this study, we know that there is an argument for the Social Learning Theory being an
explanation for lone-wolf terrorism as observing extremism online can influence an individual's
attitude towards political violence and cause them to imitate it. However, it is mediated by real-world
associations and in most cases the individual must be actively seeking out extremist content online for
it to have a significant effect on their behaviour. On the other hand, whilst these limitations may make
it seem as though it is far more unlikely that an observer may imitate the extremist behaviour; it does
not make it impossible. We know that Social Learning Theory is used successfully by terrorist groups
to radicalise and recruit soldiers as proven by a study in “The Handbook of The Criminology of
Terrorism” (Keith Akins & Thomas Winfree Jr., 2016). Another study by Gaudette et al. (2020),
assessed how exposure to far-right ideology on popular website Reddit links to viewers imitating
racist speech, actions, and ideology against Muslims in their own ‘offline’ life. The study found that
over time members of far-right “sub-Reddit's" (especially ones themed around former US President
Donald Trump) became more and more accepting of islamophobia due to the anonymity and group
mentality of expressing themselves online. Eventually, a lot of members claimed to have performed
racist actions against Muslims openly, publicly, alone, and off the internet (Gaudette et al., 2020).
Whilst this is not technically terrorism – exposure to hateful ideology has already caused individuals
to go from privately and anonymously sharing hateful views on the internet to imitating the hate they
see online openly and publicly. This huge leap could continue further into violence.
In addition to studies, we can see real-world examples of lone wolf ‘copy-cat’ terrorists observing and
imitating extremist behaviour. In 2021, Singaporean authorities arrested a 16-year-old boy after
discovering he was planning to attack two Mosques. In this case, the boy was inspired by the
Christchurch shootings that had happened two years prior where an Australian massacred people
attending a Mosque. In the Guardian article a quote is stated: “He was self-radicalised, motivated by a
strong antipathy towards Islam and a fascination with violence,” the ministry said in a statement.”
(McGowan, 2021). This statement shows that this case fits the results of Pauwels & Schils study
perfectly. He was “self-radicalised”, he had observed and planned on imitating the behaviours of the
Christchurch shooting and thus his actions can be explained by the Social Learning Theory. As well
as this, the statement that he was self- radicalised implies that he had been actively seeking to observe
extremism which the study tells us increases the chances that we would imitate the violence. He was
also, “motivated by a strong antipathy towards Islam and a fascination with violence,”, these are the
offline factors that have the potential to mediate imitation of violence, in the case of this 16-year-old
they were motivators rather than discouragement to commit an immoral act. We can see therefore
that, despite Social Learning Theory only being a partial explanation of lone-wolf terrorism, there are
