Terrorism as Collective Communication: The Collective Communication Model of Terrorism (CCMT)

Abstract

This paper proposes that the psychological and behavioral effects of terrorist threat can be understood as a collective communication process that occurs between terrorists and their potential victims. Based on classic communication theory, terrorists are regarded as the senders of a specific collective message (such as ‘stop oppressing our culture’); a terrorist incident as the collective message itself (through its performance, modality and targets); and the potential victims as its collective receivers (who interpret the intention of the attack as a function of their pre‐existing attributes, such as traits or salient social identities). The perception of terrorism as a dynamic and interactive process between collective senders, messages and receivers opens new theoretical perspectives regarding whether (a) terrorism can be successful in reaching its collective aim; (b) if it is interpreted as rational or irrational; and (c) how to counteract the vicious, cyclical relationship between terrorism and counter‐terrorism. Previous findings on the psychology of terrorism can be organized within this theoretical framework, and the psychological impact of varying attributes of the perpetrators (senders), incident (message), and the reactions of the potential victims (receivers) systematically investigated. A series of self‐conducted studies are also reviewed and found to provide direct support for the collective communication model of terrorism.

Using Interorganizational Communication Networks to Predict Terrorist Attacks

“…Simply, terrorism is defined as the “use of violence to create fear (i.e., terror, psychic fear) for (1) political, (2) religious, or (3) ideological reasons” (p. 4). Beyond this definition, though, it is important to view terrorism as a communication process (e.g., Fischer, J. K. Fischer, Weisweiler, & Frey, 2010; Matusitz, 2013; Tuman, 2003), rather than as static behavior or cognition located in a vacuum. To borrow from Griffin and McClish (2014), a communicative view of terrorism might be seen as the relational process of creating and interpreting messages that elicit a response within and between terrorists and an audience (e.g., the wider public, governments, media, and corporations).…”

Do Terrorist Attacks Leave an Identifiable ‘Fingerprint’ on International Tourist Arrival Data?

“…In terms of the impact of terrorist attacks, Fischer et al (:9) distinguish between ‘attributes of terrorism (e.g. motives, socio‐economic background, intentions, culture), attributes of the attack (e.g.…”

“…In a study of a destination's sustainability framework, Calgaro, Dominey‐Howes, and Lloyd (: 361) outlined a series of generic factors affecting destination's vulnerabilities such as ‘geographical exposure, destination specific development characteristics, social structure and governance process’. Similarly, here we suggest that the destination resilience factors (Petak, ; Tierney, ; Comfort, ; Rose, , ; Rose, Gbadebo, & Shu, ; Fischer et al ., ; NRC, , ; Hallegatte, ) can be divided into three categories: terrorist‐attack attributes; destination attributes, recipient attributes and destination management (see Figure ).…”

Understanding the Motives for Terrorism—Does it Have an Effect on Psychological Reactions? A Replication and Extension

“…Enabling people to cope well with threats and to be prepared but not afraid ( Stevens et al, 2012 ; Willis, 2007 ; Wirtz & Rohrbeck, 2018 ) is a pertinent objective of psychological research. The collective communication model of terrorism (CCMT; Fischer et al, 2010 ) focuses on terrorist attacks and its informational implications for collective conflict. It suggests that understanding terrorists’ motives reduces the negative psychological impact of reports about terrorism.…”