ABSTRACT
Acts of terrorism can be harrowing and cause extensive damage, yet they occur far too frequently. How do terrorist groups organize and coordinate their attacks? What makes those groups simultaneously cohesive and flexible in a hostile environment? Different academic disciplines have contributed to a better understanding of the proliferation of terrorist acts in recent years. With very few exceptions, however, extant psychological research on terrorism has almost exclusively focused on the individual terrorist. We leverage the team literature to better understand how a team of terrorists radicalizes, organizes, and makes decisions. Drawing from the work of Weick (1976), we characterize terrorist teams as loosely coupled systems. Examples of different terrorist attacks from the last 15 years illustrate how loose coupling in terrorist teams is especially powerful because of the high familiarity and intimacy among members of terrorist teams. Loosely coupled structures have led to highly adaptive and resilient teams whose actions are fluid, unpredictable, and often lethal. We conclude by discussing implications for counterterrorism and for future research. (PsycINFO Database Record
Subject(s)
Cooperative Behavior , Group Processes , Terrorism , HumansABSTRACT
Using meta-analytic path analysis, the authors tested several structural models linking agreeableness and conscientiousness to organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). Results showed that the 2 personality traits had both direct effects and indirect effects-through job satisfaction-on overall OCB. Meta-analytic moderator analyses that distinguished between individual- and organization-targeted citizenship behaviors (OCB-I and OCB-O) showed that agreeableness was more closely related with OCB-I and conscientiousness with OCB-O. Finally, the path analyses predicting OCB-I and OCB-O offered further support for the general hypothesis that these 2 constructs are distinct. That is, the results of these analyses revealed that agreeableness had both direct and indirect effects on OCB-I but only indirect effects on OCB-O, and that for conscientiousness the pattern of direct and indirect effects was exactly opposite (direct and indirect effects on OCB-O but only indirect effects on OCB-I).