A comparative model of the psychological effects on the victims of state and anti-state terrorism

This paper has examined and compared the psychological impact of both state and anti-state terrorism on the victim. In this regard, three dimensions to this issue were discussed: (a) the effects that are common to anti-state terror and state-terror; (b) the effects that are unique to anti-state terror; and (c) the psychological effects and sequelae specifically associated with state-terror. Given the paucity of empirical research together with the complexity of the subject matter, definitive statements are difficult to advance. Despite this, however, a number of tentative conclusions can be made. With respect to psychological reactions during the incident, many similarities seem to hold for victims of a hostage-taking, concentration camps, and torture. That is, the incident begins with a period of initial shock accompanied by extreme fear and anxiety. This is followed by a phase characterized by outward acceptance of the perpetrator's control while inside the victim is experiencing extreme fright. Gradually, a period of adaptation sets in, whereby the victim may resort to a number of coping strategies. Although similarities continue after the incident--the post-traumatic stress syndrome, for example--the intensity and duration of psychological sequelae appear to be much greater in victims of state-terror. Given the extreme brutality that invariably accompanies state-terror, this is not surprising. While the methods of anti-state terrorists may take a number of different forms, usually their resources and techniques are limited in comparison to state-terror. It is only more recently in the Middle East that anti-state terrorists more routinely are engaging in long-term detention and torture of victims. On the other hand, regimes that employ state-terror have a wide range of violent techniques at their disposal, most importantly concentration camps. It appears that prolonged physical and emotional violence combined with little hope of relief or escape is critical to understanding why victims of state terrorism are more likely to suffer more serious mental disorders than victims of anti-state terrorism.