Related Experiment Videos
Can self-destructive killers be classified so easily?
1Centre for Family and Forensic Psychology, Department of Psychiatry and Applied Psychology, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Jubilee Campus, Nottingham NG8 1BB, United Kingdom. Vincent.egan@nottingham.ac.uk http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/medicine/about/psychiatryandappliedpsychology/people/vincent.egan
The Behavioral and Brain Sciences
|August 28, 2014
Summary
This study examines myths surrounding suicide bombers and self-destructive killers. The author
Area of Science:
- Psychology
- Criminology
- Sociology
Background:
- Understanding the motivations behind suicide bombers and self-destructive killers is complex.
- Existing frameworks for classifying these individuals often rely on myths and unverified assumptions.
Purpose of the Study:
- To critically evaluate Lankford's proposed classification of suicide terrorists.
- To assess the evidential basis for discrete categories: conventional, coerced, escapist, and indirect suicide terrorists.
Main Methods:
- Analysis of an extensive dataset on offenders compiled by Lankford.
- Critical review of the proposed classification scheme's theoretical underpinnings.
Main Results:
- Lankford's work presents valuable insights into common misconceptions about suicide bombers.
- The proposed classification scheme lacks sufficient empirical support for its discrete categories.
- While the data is amenable to analysis, the resulting model may not accurately represent reality.
Conclusions:
- The discrete categories of conventional, coerced, escapist, and indirect suicide terrorists proposed by Lankford are not adequately supported by the evidence presented.
- Further research is needed to develop a more robust and empirically validated model for understanding suicide terrorists.