Page | 1

What Makes a “Lone Wolf” Terrorist? KEY PSYCHOLOGICAL TRIGGERS OF A “LONE WOLF” TERRORIST

Introduction

The characterization of the Lone Wolf terrorism doesn’t have a solid description; why

this has been a case is beyond the span of the project. Nevertheless, the term “Lone Wolf”

will be employed - to differentiate terrorist activities carried out by Lone - Actors1 from those

carried out on the part of terrorist organizations or state bodies.

Naturally, humans possess psychological triggers that guide their behaviour. Hence,

to realize and prevent Lone Wolf terrorism, their psychological triggers should be identified.

To make the task problematic, certain psychological triggers are inter-connected; yet, this

essay selects three key triggers (based on literature review) and isolates them in the separate

chapters. It’s expected that this methodology facilitates the understanding of the degree to

which the Lone Wolf behaviour has been impacted by each of them, separately.

The key psychological triggers are arbitrary and challenging to determine, as Quillen

Chris has noted, “Assigning purposes and motivations to individual acts of terror is inherently

subjective and open to considerable interpretation….” (2002, p.287). However, the project

exposes that the character of Lone Wolves can be better understood if we glimpse closer at

key behavioural influences, circumstances, background, and the extent to which their

psychology is affected by them. Accordingly, the project findings are consistent with

psychological research demonstrating that Lone Wolf behaviour depends, not separately on

individual or circumstances, but on their interaction (McCauley and Moskalenko 2011).

Hence, the intention of the project is to notify academic communities of International

Security and Psychology; regarding key psychological triggers that influence, for the most

1 According to MI5, “These groups or individuals motivate themselves, develop the

capability to carry out attacks and select targets completely independently of established

terrorist groups.” (MI5 2014).

Page | 2

part, the performance of Lone Wolves and consequently, demonstrate that gradual, structural

change in the behaviour of Lone Wolves is detectable.

Overall, the findings reveal that behaviour of Lone Wolves is, for the most part,

characterised by the following psychological triggers: the psychological mechanism of

externalization, the power of reciprocity, and the pathological narcissism. Accordingly, the

essay describes each psychological trigger in isolation - for this reason, the paper is divided

into three distinct chapters. Most academics are, almost certainly, speculating: to what extent

the Lone Wolf behaviour has been affected by the psychological mechanism of

externalization?

CHAPTER ONE

I. The Psychological Mechanism of Externalization

This essay borrows the definition of ‘externalization’ from the Freudian psychology,

which defines it as an unconscious protection mechanism by which person projects his/her

internal characteristics onto the external world (Sandler 1988). For instance, the

argumentative subject could perceive others as overly argumentative and himself/herself as

guiltless. Most Lone Wolves have been externalizing the guiltiness associated with their

activities on the public and/or particular individuals; one of the most preferred means to do so

is to blend personal grievances with the political ideology.

The Combination of Individual Grievances and Political Objectives

The mainstream of the Lone Wolf terrorism case studies have been revealing a

variable combination of political and personal motivations (Pantucci 2011). This indicated

that terrorism acts are typically products of the mix of personal and principled ideas knotted

in the web of emotions and beliefs. Hence, most Lone Wolves have been generating their

own ideologies, which combine personal frustrations and hatred with political, social and/or

religious grievances (Borum et al. 2012); usually, during this process they are drawing on

Page | 3

communities of belief and ideologies of validation, which are usually generated and

transmitted by extremist movements (Spaaij 2010). As Jessica Stern has pointed out, Lone

Wolves “often come up with their own ideologies that combine personal vendettas with

religious or political grievances” (Stern 2004, p. 172).

Shockingly, most Lone Wolves have been characterizing their behaviour as associated

with a wider political group/movement and the minority as motivated by personal grievances

per se (Gill et al., 2014). This finding indicates that (as implied earlier) most political

movements have been providing ideologies of validation and, by channelling personal

frustrations and attributing responsibility of most problems to the external world, occupying a

vital position in the psychological mechanism of externalization (Teich 2013).

Similarly, social identification with broader political, social or/and religious struggles,

in most cases, encourage dualistic categorization of the world between “us” and “them”, thus

is stereotyping social groups and dehumanizing the opponent. This effect has been

dramatically deteriorating psychological barriers against the aggression (Phillips and Pohl

2012).

Furthermore, there are complex motivations and ideological underpinnings of the

Lone Wolf terrorism; Lone Wolves’ motivational patterns have usually been containing

multifaceted constellations of ideas and feelings, which are transforming over the period

(McCauley and Moskalenko 2013). Also, as had mentioned previously, Lone Wolves’

political, religious and/or social beliefs have been influenced by communities of belief and

ideologies of validation. The tricky part, however, is that most communities of belief and

ideologies of validation are generated and reproduced by established terrorist groups and/or

extremist movements (Stern 2003). Unsurprisingly, there has been a significant commitment

to and identification with extremist movements amongst Lone Wolves (Bakker and de Graaf

2011). This is one of the reasons why the analytical distinction between Lone Wolf and group

Page | 4

– based terrorism has been challenging in practice; since group dynamics may also influence

individuals who have been operating autonomously.

Likewise, terrorist organization narratives, via the Islamic radicalization process, have

been supporting Lone Wolves in externalizing their individual grievances (Spaaij 2011).

Generally, Lone Wolf terrorism has often been an attack not only on the subject, but also on

the socio – political structure the subject represents.

Similarly, Jasparro (2010) has examined fourteen case studies of the Lone Wolf

terrorism and discovered that in most cases, religion had not been the initial motivation of

anger or/and radicalization. Nevertheless, religion had been assisting (to an extent) to form

and direct Lone Wolves’ activities. Jasparro’s research has been supporting the argument that

Lone Wolves become increasingly enraged and radical once their individual psychological

problems become unbearable; accordingly, they have been externalizing grievances and

blaming them on external causes. The following case study will demonstrate to what extent

the Lone Wolf’s grievances have been forming and sharpening by extremist ideology.

The Case Study of Mohammed Merah

He had been a French national of Algerian origin. Merah had spent vast amount of

time in Afghanistan and Pakistan and been watching violent jihadist videos online. Also, he

had been sentenced fifteen times when he was a minor; it’s assumed he had become, to a

great extent, radicalized while in a prison (Spark 2012). Besides, before the killing spree, he

had lost the job and his application to join the French military had been rejected. Soon

afterwards, his wife had separated from him and left him psychologically suffering. Young

(twenty – three years old), grieving and radicalized, on March 11, in 2012 he began the

killing spree by shooting a soldier (Siegel 2012). Afterwards, four days later, he shot two

more soldiers. After that, the third and last strike had been on the Jewish school in Toulouse,

which had resulted in four fatalities. The victims had been targeted because of their religious

Page | 5

and/or ethnic ties (Spark 2012). According to Merah, he had been encouraged by the fate of

the Palestinians, the French military presence in Afghanistan and France’s ban on the full

veil. However, according to his lawyer, Merah’s acts had been, for most part, attributed to his

grievances of divorce and rejection (Siegel 2012).

Let’s glimpse closer at the case study. First, it’s apparent that Merah had been a

juvenile delinquent who had become radicalized, for the most part, inside the prison. Second,

most likely, his Islamic radicalization had been strengthening as a consequence of personal

grievances and feeling of rejection. Finally, the ‘petrol’ for the killing spree had been the

break up with his spouse; at this point the radicalization had reached its peak, which

manifested in the bloodshed. Combination of individual grievances with political objectives

has been striking; radical Islam has helped him to disconnect the guilt from his acts and

externalize personal grievances and guilt onto the society. It must be noted that he had not

been religiously devout all his life, hence radical Islam had been utilized for a comfort

throughout the grievance process. Radical Islam condones brutality (Hamid 2008), therefore

he had been utilizing it to blame and vent most of his grievances onto the world that (in his

judgment) had wounded him. In a sense, as had mentioned previously, he hadn’t been acting

alone; he had participated in the larger political and religious movement. The critical enquiry

is emerging: what have been motivating individuals to surrender their lives for a political

cause?

CHAPTER TWO

II. The Influence of Reciprocity

Reciprocity, in the context of this essay, indicates: in response to welcoming actions,

Lone Wolves are kind and co-operative; in reaction to hostile manners, they are cruel and

violent. Generally, the concentration of reciprocity is more on trading favours than

Page | 6

negotiating with anyone (Bowles 2013). Hence, reciprocity illustrates the combination of two

psychological tendencies: to co-operate and punish non-co-operators (Fishbacher et al. 2002).

Positive and Negative Reciprocity

There are myriad of studies that have been suggesting that Lone Wolves’

psychological power of reciprocity can be best illustrated by the Prisoner Dilemma2 game

(Lacey 2008; Bowles 2013; Davis 2010). Prisoner Dilemma results demonstrate that

generally Lone Wolves initiate their acts, primary by an attempt to co-operate; and are

prepared to pay extra and punish non-co-operators. Interestingly, the research has also

demonstrated that it’s not just those who had suffered the defection who are prepared to pay

to punish the defector. A third party is frequently prepared to pay the price of the

consequences and punish a defector, despite the fact that the ‘punisher’ didn’t suffer

personally (Fishbacher et al. 2002). International Relations and Psychology experts have been

indicating that between forty and sixty percent of Prisoner Dilemma game participants are

willing to pay for their acts and punish defectors (Fishbacher et al. 2002; Quillen 2002;

Bowles 2013; Hamid 2008). Punishing (in Lone Wolves belief) bad people, signifies carrying

out justice and becomes an expression of altruism no less than aiding pleasant individuals

(Spaaij 2010). The significance of this argument is demonstrated in the case studies of Vera

Zasulich and Clayton Waagner.

Furthermore, the projective identification has been playing a key role in the process of

reciprocity (Bowles 2013). According to the theory of Projective Identification, it’s a

psychological process by which a Lone Wolf projects his/her own thoughts and beliefs onto a

third party (O’Connell 2014). To put it plainly: positive identification represents concern

about the welfare of the other. Likewise, the negative identification process is: connected

2 According to Princeton University, it’s “ …a fundamental problem in game theory that

demonstrates why two people might not cooperate even if it is in both their best interests to

do so.”

Page | 7

with the negative thoughts and actions that Lone Wolf considers as intolerable. In most cases,

negative/positive identification with victim and victimizer had allowed Lone Wolves to

attach value and significance to emotions and feelings, which are challenging for him/her to

concede. This process had allowed Lone Wolves to exert some domination over the

circumstances and mould his/her self – image by casting off destructive attributes and

donning constructive ones. The procedure rationalizes why countless Lone Wolves, who

possess a thought about themselves that they consider intolerable, projecting it onto the

society. Also, personal grievances, in most cases, necessitate the application of identification

and projection as a psychological defence to attribute guilt to others (Fehr and Fishbacher

2003).

Besides, to the extent that the grievance depends on identification and projection, it

can be steadier than the vagaries of solid emotion (Vollers 2007). As the case studies

symbolize, positive identification with the group, combined with the perception that the

group is being victimized, produces a negative identification with the group perpetrating the

injustice. Remarkably, the mental life of Lone Wolves radicalized by such group grievances

need not be marked by continuous or even continual strong emotion, or by the psychological

arousal that accompanies solid emotion. The psychological command of identification and

projection is clear-cut: to punish those who infringe group norms and tolerate the costs of the

consequences.

Hence, it shouldn’t be remarkable that given positive identification with the group

perceived as being victimized, Lone Wolves have been feeling anger and, in some cases,

outrage toward victimizers. Recognizing that Lone Wolves’ perceived group victimization

has been producing powerful negative identification with the victimizer can also clarify the

discrepancy in time signature that undermines accounts of political violence in terms of

emotion. The main point to learn by heart is that the positive identification with the victims

Page | 8

and negative identification with the victimizers, in many Lone Wolf terrorism cases, have

been providing a steady supply of motivation for Lone Wolves, where aid for the victims

and/or damage to the victimizers is perceived as rewarding. As illustrated by the following

case studies, generally, Lone Wolves don’t lose vision of self – interest; their self – interest is

overshadowed by the group interest.

The Case Studies

Vera Zasulich

Vera Zasulich was born in Imperial Russia in 1849 (Bergman 1983); this makes her

one of the earliest Lone Wolves. She had received teaching degree and worked as a secretary,

however she had gravitated towards the radical rhetoric and student protests. For her role in

the activism she had been arrested and exiled to the remote village. She quickly had returned

to student activism circles yet again.

The turning point in her life happened when one of the protesters, in July 1887, had

been arrested and for his misconduct ordered, by the governor, to be publically flogged

(Bergman 1983). Zasulich had been outraged by the injustice of the governor and especially

by the absolute lack of repercussion for this arbitrary despotism. Also, Zasulich had

individual experience of the helplessness of prison life to craft abuses against protesters more

than abstract sympathy.

It didn’t take long and she and her friend had planned to assassinate two government

officials infamous for offences against student activists. The abovementioned psychological

command of identification and projection is plain; she had decided to take justice into her

own hands, even if it indicated sacrificing her life. She had been determined to bring out

justice for the student she had identified with, with full anticipation of paying with her life.

She had shot the governor but he hadn’t died.

By peeking at her biography, it’s obvious that she had no symptoms of

Page | 9

psychopathology, generally her character had not been oppositional, stubborn or ideological,

she hadn’t been hostile and politically motivated, and she hadn’t been devoted to methods,

group or ideas (Bergman 1983). She had been, one of the countless Lone Wolves, who have

been loyal to the voice of conscience and have an unusually resilient capacity to sense the

suffering of others.

Clayton Waagner

Clayton Waagner was born in the United States in 1956 (Lewin 2001). He has never

experienced mental illness and enjoys the fellowship of small non – denominational

Protestant churches. Nevertheless, in 1970’s and 1990’s he had been convicted for acts of

burglary and sentenced to four years (Davis 2010). The turning point in his life was January

1999, when his daughter produced a granddaughter born deceased at twenty – four weeks

(Davis 2010). Waagner had been exceptionally depressed and grieving. Shortly, according to

Waagner himself he had heard an internal voice, “How can you grieve so hard over this one

when millions are killed each year and you do nothing?” (Davis 2010, p. 210)

It’s apparent that the grief of holding lifeless granddaughter had turned into remorse

for doing nothing about millions of children aborted; and combined guilt with grievances had

developed into radicalization. According to Waagner’s statements, he had seen abortion

providers as victimizers and aggression against them as justified. It’s evident that he, as most

Lone Wolves, had identified with the suffering of others (infants), which had provided

emotional energy for personal grievance. Ultimately, he had seen thousands of infants killed

by abortion providers as a group in need of defence, which had been his responsibility to

provide.

He had been, by various non – lethal means, continuously inflicting terror on abortion

providers, but the ultimate assault occurred in 2001 November - he sent false anthrax threats

to abortion clinics across the United States and disrupted their operations (Lewin 2001). He

Page | 10

was captured a month following the anthrax threats and has been serving a thirty year jail

sentence (Clines 2001).

In conclusion, one might enquire: how can ordinary individuals execute terrorism acts

and if they are all mentally sick? The consent among the majority of academics is that most

Lone Wolves experience psychopathological effects; however they also approve argument

that it doesn’t, for the most part, explain the Lone Wolves’ grandiose fantasies of fame and

intolerance of difference. What, then, describes the Lone Wolves’ delusions of grandeur and

superiority and conviction that their ideas are exceptional - regardless if it entails violation of

a number of laws and/or terrorizing communities?

CHAPTER THREE

III. Pathological Narcissism

Generally pathological narcissism has been the consequence of Lone Wolves’

oversensitivity, the repression of devastating experiences and the restraint of inordinately

robust negative feelings (LaFree 2013). It’s an addictive behaviour that involves an impaired,

dysfunctional, juvenile (real) self, coupled with a compensatory fantasy (fake) self. Hence,

Lone Wolves have usually been obsessed by hallucinations of greatness and superiority and

suppose that their ideas are exceptional, even if it entails a violation of certain laws. Usually,

fantasies have been hampering Lone Wolves’ capability to function in a society; thus they

have often been socially isolated.

Pathological Narcissism and Grandiose Fantasies

Let’s start with the psychological observation that the psychology of most Lone

Wolves, at its base, has a narcissistic self – structure where primal modes of thinking

predominate (Spaaij 2010). Hence, the ability for forging individual attachments and object

relating has been impaired. Typically, the relations of Lone Wolves with others have been

Page | 11

narcissistically motivated, their self – image is energized by omnipotent and grandiose

fantasies and see regular individuals as objects to be degraded or/and eliminated. Lone

Wolves tend to dwell in the primitive, pre – Oedipal3 inner world – where part object

associations are predominating and are controlled by primitive psychological resistance

mechanisms such as splitting and denial and lack additional mature defence mechanisms,

such as repression and sublimation (Spaaij 2010, p.128). Similarly, the psychological

primitive affects, such as disgrace, pleasure and antipathy have been prominent, whereas

more mature affects, such as responsibility and concern, which include an appreciation of

complete objects and ability for real bonding, have been typically impaired (Spaaij 2010, p.

160).

Therefore, most Lone Wolves have been passionate, serious, strident in their opinion

and attempting to inflict their beliefs, rather than convince. They tend to preach to others that

their thoughts are more rigid, supreme and specific and as Ted Kaczynski had claimed (this

applies to most Lone Wolves), he had a “contemptuous disregard for all the rest of the human

race and its opinions.”(Puckett 2001, p.75). Such attitude has often been accompanied by an

intolerance of difference, expressed in struggle with remaining in near physical proximity to

others who may not recognize his/her viewpoint.

Furthermore, typically Lone Wolves discover psychological comfort in their inner

lives and instigate to gradually extend pathologically narcissistic fantasies (Meloy 1998).

Fantasies are often turned into internal interpretation of the self as invincible, pretentious and

brutal warrior who vanquishes opponents. It has been exposed that such fantasies often

reimburse for a real – world sexual, social and/or occupation disappointments (McCauley and

3 According to Psychology Dictionary it’s “[A] stage of development… crucial for kids, and a

time in life when parents should be paying particular attention to tending to the emotional

needs of a child."

Page | 12

Moskalenko 2011). Fantasies of magnificence, tied with the moral outrage and grievances

and the adoption of snippets of a belief system that sanctions aggression, typically becomes

the inner psychological pattern for the pathway to terrorism (Calhoun et al. 2008). Also,

usually personal grievance and moral outrage has been strengthened due to a pathological

narcissism that sensitises Lone Wolves to rejection.

Similarly, the psychological morality of Lone Wolves has typically been a dualistic

selection between good and evil. It has been cleansing ambiguities of moral preference and

encouraging regression to a plain internal world of good and bad objects – rather than objects

with good and bad qualities (Kernberg 1995). Typically the psychology of Lone Wolves has

also been prone to sequential movement to contempt that brings with it a condemnation of the

other; their enemies have been devalued; hence Lone Wolves’ opinions have been more

strident and preachy (Yakeley and Meloy 2014). Lone Wolves usually consider that there is

no necessity for a heated conversation of ideas, since the other is incorrect from the

beginning. Typically, it doesn’t take long and the object is entirely devalued and the

psychological sequencing to disgust transpires in Lone Wolves’ behaviour (Yakeley and

Meloy 2014). The object becomes disgusting and the principal impulse of Lone Wolves’, at

this stage, is to eradicate the object. Possibly, disgust is the psychological endpoint that has

been allowing the Lone Wolf to morally approve brutality. Clearly, this has been a super-ego

driven homicidal hostility wherein Lone Wolves have been realizing a mandate for their

violent behaviour.

Predictably, there are numerous academics who have been arguing whether Lone

Wolves have been suffering from some form of the psychopathology (Quillen 2002; Davis

2010; Gintis and Bowles 2013; Vollers 2007). To conclude the analysis of their debate it’s

obvious that terrorists haven’t generally been suffering from identifiable psychopathology,

however the rate of psychological disturbance emerges to be higher among Lone Wolves.

Page | 13

Nevertheless, the task to precisely determine the extent to which Lone Wolves’ behaviour has

been directly influenced by their mental state is beyond the span of this project, but is a

recommended research prospect. Let’s now investigate to what extent the pathological

narcissism has influenced the psychology of Anders Behring Breivik.

The Case Study of Anders Behring Breivik

Breivik was born in Norway in 1979 (Syse 2014, p.392). His parents have divorced

when he was still an infant; hence he has, for the most time, resided with a mother in Oslo.

Breivik’s mother has not been mentally healthy and psychological reports have described her

as “a woman with an extreme difficult upbringing, borderline personality structure and an all

– encompassing if only partially visible depression”, and who “projects her primitive

aggressive and sexual fantasies onto him [Breivik].” (Orange 2012). When Breivik turned

four, the psychological examination report had exposed concerns about his mental wellbeing,

too (Syse 2014, p. 392). Also, he had been withdrawn from the secondary school due to

intolerance of difference; however his classmates had described him as bright and remote

student.

When Breivik had reached adolescent, his activities had become rebellious; he had

became concentrated and humourless, commenced weight training and exploited anabolic

steroids; he had been obsessed about his appearance. Also, he had become increasingly

politically involved and had had solid political opinions against the Norwegian immigration

policies (as being too gentle) and had perceived the liberal party to be too anti – patriotic

(Syse 2014, p.394). Since 2006 he had been playing World of Warcraft (computer game)

where he had been an outstanding fighter (Syse 2014, p.394). The game, most likely, had

assisted him to discover the psychological solace and develop his pathological narcissistic

fantasies that shortly had turned into internal representation of the self as a grandiose warrior.

Page | 14

In 2007, Breivik stopped playing the game and commenced writing his manifesto4;

manifesto has been expressing Islamophobia5, support for Zionism

6 and to some degree,

opposition to Feminism (Syse 2014, p.395). He has been regarding Islam and “cultural

Marxism7” as “the enemy” and arguing for the aggressive annihilation of “Eurabia

8” and

multiculturalism and for the deportation of all Muslims from Europe (Syse 2014, p.395) The

psychological morality of Breivik has been a dualistic choice between good (Norwegians and

Europeans) and evil (Islam), which has produced a sentiment of disgust and hence

psychologically sanctioned brutality and eradication of Islamists from Norway and Europe. In

his manifesto, Breivik has been preaching that Norwegians and Europeans should end

complaining and instead contest by his side and that “It is better to kill too many than not

enough…the time for dialogue is over…the time for armed resistance has come” (Gardell

2011). Lone Wolf has supposed that democratic struggle to protect Europe from deliberate

cultural annexation had been lost and “Armed Struggle is the only rational approach.”

(Breivik 2011, p. 801 – 802)

On August 24th

of 2012 Breivik committed multiple acts of terrorism and declared

that the main psychological motivation had been to promote his manifesto and regarded

victims as a collateral damage (Puzey and Borchgrevink 2013). He has repetitively claimed

that he was “Knight Justiciar Grand Master” of a non – existing Templar organization and

that his responsibility has been to rescue Norway and Europe (Syse 2014, p. 399).

4 The Manifesto can be found here: http://unitednations.ispnw.org/archives/breivik-manifesto-

2011.pdf 5 According to Oxforddictionaries.com it’s “Dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims,

especially as a political force.” 6 According to Oxforddictionaries.com it’s “A movement for (originally) the re-establishment

and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is not Israel.” 7 According to Urbandictionary.com it’s “The gradual process of destroying all traditions,

languages, religions, individuality, government, family, law and order in order to re-assemble

society in the future as a communist utopia.” 8 According to Macmillandictionary.com it’s “a political term which describes the growing

influence of the Arab world on Europe.”

Page | 15

Multiple psychiatric and psychological reports have claimed that Breivik has acted

compulsively based on a universe of peculiar, grandiose and delusional ideas (Syse 2014,

p.399). Additionally, the reports have also exposed a grave lack of empathy in his psychology

and concluded that he isn’t psychotic but has been having an antisocial personality disorder

which is, for the most part, a consequence of his pathologically narcissistic character (Syse

2014, p.399).

Conclusion

The extent to which the behaviour of Lone Wolves has been characterised by each of

the psychological triggers: the psychological mechanism of externalization, the power of

reciprocity and the pathological narcissism, has been striking.

The psychological mechanism of externalization has been psychologically assisting

Lone Wolves to blend their individual grievances with broader political objectives. Islamic

radicalization process, throughout the course of psychological externalization, has typically

been supporting Lone Wolves’ violence; however, the consensus amongst academics is that

religion per se. has not been the preliminary stimulus of rage or/and radicalization. Besides,

Lone Wolves’ societal identification with broader political goals has been contributing to

dualistic categorization; hence it has been stereotyping social groups and dehumanizing

opponents and, in countless cases, escalating the effect of reciprocity.

The psychological effect of Lone Wolves’ positive and negative reciprocity has been

illustrated by the Prisoner Dilemma game. In addition, the projective identification has been

occupying a key position in the psychological process of reciprocity. Fascinatingly, it has

been revealed that to the extent that the personal grievance of Lone Wolves depends on

identification and projection, it can be firmer than the genuine emotion. After all, Lone

Wolves don’t surrender a sight of self – interest; the vision is basically overshadowed by the

broader group interest(s); particularly when classic Lone Wolf suffers from a pathological

Page | 16

narcissism and recognizes him/herself as possessing the responsibility to defend group

interest(s).

Moreover, the psychology of typical Lone Wolf, at its foundation, has a narcissistic

self – arrangement, where primal modes of thinking prevail. Hence, usually Lone Wolves

locate psychological contentment in their inner lives, where they are frequently developing

pathologically narcissistic fantasies. Additionally, the rate of mental disturbance, in

comparison to group – terrorism, has been higher amongst the Lone Wolves. However, it

remains uncertain, to what extent the behaviour of Lone Wolves’ has been influenced by their

mental state; hence, it’s a highly recommended opportunity of academic investigation.

Furthermore, the research uncovered that there is a mixture of individual, societal and

external factors that influence the radicalization course of Lone Wolves. The radicalization

process typically contains a social procedure that is individual in nature and depends on the

particular circumstances and individual characteristics of the person involved and his/her

interaction with significant others. Although the external aspects such as political and sub-

cultural circumstances influence the environment and faith of Lone Wolves, nevertheless they

don’t possess a direct psychological influence on Lone Wolves behaviour and are also, in

most cases, mediated by societal and psychological dynamics in which the Lone Wolf is

directly engaged.

Finally, the findings suggest that motivational patterns of Lone Wolves have usually

been containing complex constellations of thoughts and emotions, which have been

transforming over the time. This indicates that terrorism of Lone Wolves is rarely impulsive

and hence, can be noticed. Although the strategic desire of an essay has been to demonstrate

the psychological pressure of each trigger independently, it seems that attacks of Lone

Wolves materialize from a steady chain of numerous behaviours. Hence, the proposal for

researchers is to concentrate upon an analysis of Lone Wolves behaviour rather than

Page | 17

endeavouring to categorize and consequently illuminate what are (rationally) semi- constant

socio-demographic features.

Bibliography

Bergman, J. 1983. Vera Zasulich: A Biography. America: Stanford University Press.

Borum et al. 2012. A dimensional approach to analyzing lone offender terrorism. Aggression

and Violent Behavior, 17, pp. 389 – 396.

Bowles, S. 2013. A Cooperative Species: Human Reciprocity and Its Evolution. America:

Princeton University Press.

Breivik, B.A. 2011. 2083 [Online]. Available from:

http://unitednations.ispnw.org/archives/breivik-manifesto-2011.pdf [Accessed 21

November 2014].

Calhoun et al. 2008. Threat Assessment and Management Strategies: Identifying the Howlers

and Hunters. America: CRC Press.

Clines, X.F. 2001. Man Is Arrested in Threats Mailed to Abortion Clinics [Online]. Available

from: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/06/us/man-is-arrested-in-threats-mailed-to-

abortion-clinics.html [Accessed 18 November 2014].

Davis, W. D. 2010. The Phinehas Priesthood: Violent Vanguard of the Christian Identity

Movement (PSI Guides to Terrorists, Insurgents, and Armed Groups). America: ABC

– CLIO.

Fehr et al. 2002. Strong Reciprocity, Human Cooperation and the Enforcement of Social

Norms. Human Nature, 13, pp. 1 – 25.

Gardell, M. 2011. The roots of Breivik’s Ideology: where does the romantic male warrior

ideal come from today? [Online]. Available from:

https://www.opendemocracy.net/mattias-gardell/roots-of-breiviks-ideology-

wheredoes-romantic-male-warrior-ideal-come-from-today [Accessed 22 November

2014].

Gill et al. 2014. Bombing Alone: Tracing the Motivations and Antecedent Behaviors of Lone

– Actor Terrorists. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 59(2), pp. 425-435.

Hamid, T. 2008. Inside Jihad: Understanding and Confronting Radical Islam. England:

Abdelhamid (Self – Published).

Jasparro, C. 2010. Lone wolf – The threat from independent jihadists. Jane’s Intelligence

Review.

Kernberg, F.O. 1995. Object Relations Theory and Clinical Psychoanalysis. England: Jason

Aronson.

Page | 18

Lacey, N. 2008. The Prisoners’ Dilemma: Political Economy and Punishment in

Contemporary Democracies. England: Cambridge University Press.

LaFree, G. 2013. Loner Attacks and Domestic Extremism. Criminology and Public Policy,

12(1), pp. 59 – 62.

Lewin, T. 2001. Suspect Named in Fake Anthrax Mailings to Abortion Clinics [Online].

Available from: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/30/national/30HOAX.html

[Accessed 19 November 2014].

Macmillandictionary.com 2014. Definition of Eurabia [Online]. Available from:

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/open-dictionary/entries/Eurabia.htm [Accessed

15 November 2014].

McCauley, C. and Moskalenko, S. 2011a. Fiction: How Radicalization Happens to Them and

Us. England: Oxford University Press.

McCauley, C. and Moskalenko, S. 2011b. The psychology of lone – wolf terrorism.

Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 24(2), pp. 115-126.

McCauley, C. and Moskalenko, S. 2013. Toward a Profile of Lone Wolf Terrorists: What

Moves an Individual From Radical Opinion to Radical Action. Terrorism and

Political Violence, 26(1), pp. 69-85.

Meloy, J. R. ed. 1998. The psychology of stalking: clinical and forensic perspectives.

America: Academic Press.

MI5 2014. Lone Actors [Online]. Available from: https://www.mi5.gov.uk/home/the-

threats/terrorism/international-terrorism/international-terrorism-and-the-uk/the-threat-

from-lone-actors.html [Accessed 20 November 2014].

O’Connell, B. 2014. Understanding Projective Identification in Psychotherapy [Online].

Available from: http://talkingtherapy.ie/barbaraoconnell/articles/understanding-

projective-identification-psychotherapy/ [Accessed 15 November 2014].

Orange, R. 2012. Anders Behring Breivik’s mother ‘sexualised’ him when he was four

[Online]. Available from:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/9592433/Anders-

Behring-Breiviks-mother-sexualised-him-when-he-was-four.html [Accessed 21

November 2014].

Oxforddictionaries.com 2014. Islamophobia [Online]. Available from:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/Islamophobia [Accessed 21

November 2014].

Phillips, J.P. and Pohl, G. 2012. Economic Profiling of the Lone Wolf Terrorist: Can

Economics Provide Behavioral Investigative Advice? Journal of Applied Security

Research, 7(2), pp. 151 – 177.

Page | 19

Princeton.edu. 2014. Prisonner’s Dilemma [Online]. Available from:

https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Prisoner_s_dilemma.html

[Accessed 21 November 2014].

Psychologydictionary.org 2014. What is Preoedipal? [Online]. Available from:

http://psychologydictionary.org/preoedipal/ [Accessed 21 November 2014].

Puckitt,K. 2001. The lone terrorist: the search for connection and its relationship to societal-

level violence. America: Counterterrorism Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Puzey, G. and Borchgrevink, A. 2013. A Norwegian Tragedy: Anders Behring Breivik and

the Massacre on Utøya. England: Polity Press.

Quillen, C. 2002. A Historical Analysis of Mass Casualty Bombers. Studies in Conflict and

Terrorism, 25, pp. 287.

Sandler, J. 1988. Projection, Identification, Projective Identification. England: H.Karnac

(Books) Ltd.

Siegel, C.P. 2012. French Counterterrorism Policy in the Wake of Mohammed Merrah’s

Attack [Online]. Available from: https://www.ctc.usma.edu/posts/french-

counterterrorism-policy-in-the-wake-of-mohammed-merahs-attack [Accessed 19

November 2014].

Spaaij, R. 2010. The Enigma of Lone Wolf Terrorism: An Assessment. Studies in Conflict

and Terrorism, 33(9), pp. 854 – 870.

Spaaij, R. 2011. Understanding Lone Wolf Terrorism: Global Patterns, Motivations and

Prevention (SpringerBriefs in Criminology). America: Springer Dordrecht

Heidelberg.

Spark, S. L. 2012. Who was French gunman Mohammed Merah? [Online]. Available from:

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/03/21/world/europe/france-shooting-suspect-profile/

[Accessed 18 November 2014].

Stern, J. 2004. Lone-Wolf Avengers. Terror in the Name of God: Why Religious Militants

Kill. America: Harper Parennial, pp. 172 – 188.

Teich, S. 2013. Trends and Developments in Lone Wolf Terrorism in the Western World: An

Analysis of Terrorist Attacks and Attempted Attacks by Islamic Extremists.

International Institute of Counter – Terrorism, pp. 1 – 23.

Urbandictionary.com 2014. Cultural Marxism [Online]. Available from:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cultural%20marxism [Accessed 20

November 2014].

Vollers, M. 2007. Lone Wolf: Eric Rudolph and the Legacy of American Terror. America:

Harper Perennial.

Page | 20

Yakeley, J. and Meloy, R. J. 2014. The Violent True Believer as a “Lone Wolf” –

Psychoanalytic Perspectives on Terrorism. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 32, pp.

347 – 365.