Commentary | Special Issue: Psychology of Violent Extremism

The end of ideological violence

Clark McCauley

https://doi.org/10.56296/aip00066
Published: July 17, 2026
Copyright: The authors (CC BY 4.0)

McCauley, C. (2026). The end of ideological violence. advances.in/psychology, 1, e145270. https://doi.org/10.56296/aip00066

McCauley, Clark. "The end of ideological violence." advances.in/psychology, vol. 1, no. 1, 2026, e145270. https://doi.org/10.56296/aip00066.

McCauley, Clark. 2026. "The end of ideological violence." advances.in/psychology 1 (1): e145270. https://doi.org/10.56296/aip00066.

McCauley C. The end of ideological violence. advances.in/psychology. 2026;1(1):e145270. doi:10.56296/aip00066.

McCauley, C. (2026) 'The end of ideological violence', advances.in/psychology, 1(1), e145270. Available at: https://doi.org/10.56296/aip00066.

Download .RIS Download .bib

Why does non-state violence without a clear ideology represent a problem for terrorism scholars? This comment on Horgan and Shayler, Perliger, Baele, and Cassam suggests that lone-actor perpetrators with no-or-mixed ideology are the beginning of the end of defining terrorists and violent extremist as ideologically motivated. An alternative is available that does not privilege broad conceptions of ideology. The role of ideas in radicalization to terrorism and violent extremism is better understood in terms of the three dimensions of a mobilization frame: diagnostic, prognostic, and motivational framing.

No citation data available yet.

Download PDF Back to article