Summary
Terrorism is designed less to win territory than to occupy attention. A small number of perpetrators can generate an outsized Impact when fear spreads faster than facts, and when anxiety turns into policy demands, social suspicion, or civic paralysis. Recognizing this can help the audience feel more in control of their responses, understanding that behavior change is the actual target—how people live, think, trust, and vote when they feel unsafe.
Terrorism “wins” when it persuades ordinary people to reorganize daily life around anxiety and dread.
Terrorism as Communication, Not Just Violence
Modern terrorism functions as a communication strategy aimed at audiences far beyond direct victims, emphasizing the psychological effects, such as vulnerability and uncertainty, that are often the primary objectives. Researchers and practitioners have long noted that the psychological effect—the public’s sense of vulnerability and uncertainty—is often the primary objective. RAND’s Brian Michael Jenkins put it plainly: terrorism is calculated to create fear, and “its effects, above all, are intended to be psychological,” aimed at “the people watching.” [
The idea that terrorism targets observers is echoed in communication-focused scholarship: terrorism is a “spectacular public action” directed at the audience’s psychological and emotional state, designed to produce anxiety and horror. [
The immediate victims are not always the “main audience”—the broader public is.
“Terrorism Is Theater”: Why Spectacle Matters
One of the most influential observations about terrorism is that it is staged for visibility. As Jenkins famously summarized: “Terrorism is theater,” and, as often quoted, terrorists want “a lot of people watching, not a lot of people dead.”
That framing is not a trivial metaphor. It explains why attacks are frequently designed for newsworthiness—dramatic, symbolic, and emotionally salient. Recent research on terrorism as a “performance of violence” describes how media ecosystems, through sensational coverage and repeated broadcasts, can amplify fear well beyond the location of an attack, extending the psychological reach of the event.
Spectacle is the multiplier: the same act becomes far more powerful when it dominates screens.
The Real Target: “A Crime Against Our Minds”
Security expert Bruce Schneier captures terrorism’s deeper purpose straightforwardly:
“Terrorism isn’t a crime against people or property… It’s a crime against our minds… And when we react out of fear… the terrorists succeed.” — Bruce Schneier.
That insight matches the central claim of terrorism-as-psychological-warfare research: terror is a state of mind that can erode objective risk assessment. Alex Schmid notes that “terror” can so agitate body and mind that those affected are no longer able to evaluate risk realistically—making fear a powerful political instrument.
The goal is not only damage—it’s distortion: to make societies misread risk and overreact. But understanding this can inspire the audience to value social trust as a key defense, knowing that strong community bonds can help resist manipulation.
Why Division Is Strategically Valuable
Fear rarely remains private. It tends to seek explanations, scapegoats, and certainty—conditions that can accelerate social division. This is precisely why Kennedy’s quote pairs fear with uncertainty and division: the psychological effects can fracture familiar narratives and weaken social trust.
Large-scale evidence supports the premise that terrorism aims to shift emotions and, through emotions, public attitudes. A 2024 Scientific Reports study describes terrorism as a form of “psychological warfare” designed to instill fear and insecurity, showing that attacks produce dramatic spikes in negative emotions and can be accompanied by changes in attitudes and policy preferences. ]
Division isn’t always an accident; it can be a downstream objective of fear-driven influence.
From Terrorism to Information Warfare: The Shared Playbook
Terrorism’s psychological logic overlaps with a broader phenomenon: information warfare—efforts to shape decisions by manipulating what people believe to be true. One widely used definition describes information warfare as manipulating information trusted by a target—often without the target’s awareness—so the target makes decisions against their own interests.
RAND’s work on strategic information warfare underscores how modern conflict increasingly involves exploiting information infrastructure and public perception, not only conventional military power.
In practice, both terrorism and information warfare leverage similar levers:
- Attention capture (make the event unavoidable)
- Emotional escalation (fear, anger, humiliation)
- Narrative simplification (reduce complexity into “us vs. them”)
In the digital age, the battlespace often includes your feed—because perception drives behavior.
The “Feedback Loop” Between Fear and Response
A core danger of psychological warfare is that it can create a self-reinforcing cycle: vivid events produce fear; fear demands action; action can amplify attention and polarization; polarization increases vulnerability to manipulation.
RAND’s Jenkins warns that in a “media-drenched society,” coverage extends the reach of terrorism. At the same time, political incentives can make it safer to support expanded security measures than to question them—mainly when fear sells, and blame is readily assigned.
Schneier makes the same point from a civic resilience angle: if a society changes policy primarily out of fear—becoming less open—terrorists may “succeed” even when attacks fail, because the societal response can be more damaging than the attack itself.
The most consequential “aftershock” of terror is often what a society does to itself.
What Resilience Looks Like (Without Denying Real Threats)
Resilience does not mean pretending danger doesn’t exist. It means resisting manipulation—especially the kind that turns anxiety into irreversible social and political damage.
Here are practical resilience habits grounded in the research above:
1. Separate event from narrative. Ask: What happened? What is being claimed? What is confirmed?
2. Slow the share. Emotional spikes are exactly when misinformation spreads fastest and verification is most needed.
3. Demand proportionality. An effective response matches the actual risk rather than the perceived catastrophe.
4. Protect social trust. Division magnifies the effectiveness of psychological influence; cross-group ties blunt it.
Resilience is the refusal to outsource judgment to panic.
Conclusion: The Battleground Is Behavior
Kennedy’s quote endures because it describes terrorism as a strategy aimed at fear, uncertainty, and division—forces that reshape civic life long after the immediate event. Jenkins’ “theater” metaphor explains the role of spectacle and audience, while Schneier’s “crime against our minds” captures the deeper objective: to make free societies act unfreely.
In an era of weaponized narratives and high-velocity media, the lesson is not only about terrorism. It is about the broader information environment in which fear can be amplified, monetized, and operationalized. Understanding that does not solve every threat—but it changes how we respond.