Resumen: Behavioral scientists have attempted to describe and explain terroristic aggression in various ways. Acts of terrorism have typically been labeled as instrumentally aggressive in nature, however, we argue that this descriptor is insufficient in capturing the complexity of terroristic aggression. In light of this, we propose a new term called “programmatic aggression” that may better serve to capture the multiple levels
of influence in generating terroristic aggression. We also review how personality and psychopathological models and theories of aggression, including the frustration-aggression hypothesis, social learning theory, and the General Aggression Model, have been applied and fall short in the explication of terroristic aggression. Finally, we suggest some future directions of research that would likely benefit the study of terrorism and aggression, including analysis of social psychological work on group dynamics and their influence on individual and group behavior, as well as forensic risk and threat assessment research that could inform future efforts at predicting and hopefully, preventing acts of terroristic aggression.
