IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/johsem/v4y2007i2p18n1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Implementation of a Methodology for the Prioritizing of Suicide Attacker Recruitment Preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Wells Linton

    (University of Virginia)

  • Horowitz Barry M.

    (University of Virginia)

Abstract

Terrorist organizations are often difficult for policy makers to understand, a circumstance that is exacerbated when there is little consensus amongst the community of experts. This research presents a controlled way to prioritize differing explanations about terrorist organizations. As a case study we examine the preferences of the organization Hamas when recruiting suicide attackers. Using two different data sets, one collected from past suicide attacker biographies, the other a survey of subject matter experts, we prioritized ten categories of theories of recruitment in the West Bank from 2001-2005.Based on our analysis, the four factors found to be most important are, in no order of importance: religious influences, individual frustrations, personal economic motivations and political/nationalistic motivations. In contrast, the six factors which are least important are: cultural motivations, personal revenge motivations, social network enablers, operational usefulness to the organization, small group dynamics and internal psychological disorders. To minimize Hamas's recruitment effectiveness, countermeasures which align with the important factors will be more effective than those that do not.

Suggested Citation

  • Wells Linton & Horowitz Barry M., 2007. "Implementation of a Methodology for the Prioritizing of Suicide Attacker Recruitment Preferences," Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, De Gruyter, vol. 4(2), pages 1-18, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:bpj:johsem:v:4:y:2007:i:2:p:18:n:1
    DOI: 10.2202/1547-7355.1232
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.2202/1547-7355.1232
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2202/1547-7355.1232?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:johsem:v:4:y:2007:i:2:p:18:n:1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.