The Eye of the Believer

Psychological Influences on Counter-Terrorism Policy-Making

by Jonathan Schachter

Full Document

FormatFile SizeNotes
zip file 0.9 MB

The file(s) provided above are ZIP-formatted archives, which most modern systems can natively unpack. If your computer does not unpack the archive when you double-click it, you may need to use a separate decompression program such as UnZip.

This dissertation examines social psychological aspects of the foreign and counter-terrorism policy-making processes. It presents common psychological biases that affect how we understand the behavior of foreign actors in general and of substate terrorist groups in particular, discusses the impact of these biases on policies, and examines how the effects of those biases can be limited in the future. The author presents three illustrative historical case studies: Secretary of State Henry Kissinger's negotiation with Syrian president Hafiz al-Asad following the 1973 Arab-Israeli War; the U.S.-Israeli understanding of the use of violence by Hamas and the Palestinian Authority; and the gross differences in perception of America's counter-terrorism deterrent messages by both the senders and receivers of those messages, which ultimately led to the deterrence failure on September 11. These cases demonstrate how often-imperceptible psychological biases affected the actors involved, distorting their situational assessments, constraining their subsequent decisionmaking, and resulting in harm to U.S. long-term interests and in substantial loss of life. The author suggests that counter-bias strategies, including creating awareness of preconceptions and biases, might have led to different sets of decisions. He concludes by presenting a critical analysis of specific counter-terrorism policy options for the near and long term.

Table of Contents

  • Abstract

  • All Prefatory Materials

  • Introduction

  • Chapter One

    Contextualization and Its Discontents

  • Chapter Two

    Principle, Practicality and Policy-Making In the Aftermath of the 1973 Arab-Israeli War

  • Chapter Three

    Post-Oslo Hamas Terrorism: Wye and Why Not

  • Chapter Four

    Deterring Al-Qa'Idah: Past, Present, Power and Perception

  • Chapter Five

    Conclusion and Policy Recommendations: The Era of 'Constrainment'

  • Sources Consulted

Research conducted by

This report is part of the RAND Corporation Dissertation series. Pardee RAND dissertations are produced by graduate fellows of the Pardee RAND Graduate School, the world's leading producer of Ph.D.'s in policy analysis. The dissertations are supervised, reviewed, and approved by a Pardee RAND faculty committee overseeing each dissertation.

Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit

Permission is given to duplicate this electronic document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Copies may not be duplicated for commercial purposes. Unauthorized posting of RAND PDFs to a non-RAND Web site is prohibited. RAND PDFs are protected under copyright law. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit the RAND Permissions page.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.