Terrorism aims at political influence through emotional arousal rather than destruction

Evidence

As Greenstein (1973, p. 464) has noted: “It would seem necessary to identify functionally discrete types of violence and aggression in order to identify reasonably stable and distinctive antecedents.” This observation is equally appropriate to the analysis of the consequences of violence. Terrorism is one of these discrete types of violence. The purpose of this chapter is to use terrorism as the basis for a case study of the relationship between political violence and psychology. Terrorism, a rare and extreme form of political behavior, is dependent on the motivations of the small numbers who practice it. Because its effectiveness in influencing political events depends on arousing emotions, the psychological reactions of its target audiences are significant. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 4067

Categorization

• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 4067
• XREF: connects to: Terror is a strategy of asymmetric violence deployable by weak or strong actors — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 828; Terrorism is framed as irrational fanaticism rather than political response; Polarization suppresses moderates through terrorist intimidation — Gregory H. Stanton, Ten Stages of Genocide, 14 (+1 more)