Pakistan Journal of Criminology

Vol. 16, No. 04, October—December 2024 (37-54)

Exploring Causes of Radicalization and Violent Extremism among
Children: The Effects of Toy Guns on Children in Pakistan

Tehmina Aslam1, Ashfaq U. Rehman2,

Abida Bano3

Abstract
A child's interaction with toys is essential for their social and behavioural
development. This paper examines the relationship between toy guns and
radicalisation, specifically its effects on children's cognitive and behavioural
development and whether they contribute to future violent patterns. The study
used a mixed-method approach with children aged six to 15, both boys and girls,
in a Lahore-based school. The exercise aimed to understand the amount of real
hostility, pretending aggression, playing rough-and-tumble (R&T), and pretend-to-
nonaggressive to investigate the relationship between toy gun play and aggression.
The paper concludes that radicalism and its violent manifestations result from a
combination of factors simultaneously playing out at the macro (political and
economic) and micro (social and individual) levels.

Keywords: Radicalisation, Toy guns, VE, Macro-level factors, Micro-level

factors, Aggression, Children and Toy Guns, Pakistan

Introduction
Radicalization: Meaning and Concept
Toys are primarily a child's medium of expression; they identify
themselves with the toy and begin to create their identities. They even associate
their emotions with certain toys, which eventually start their behaviour formation
and impact an individual's personality expansion. Radicalisation envisages many
behaviours, and only sometimes everyone is inherently flawed. On the contrary,
some behaviour patterns have resulted in global social change. Depending on the
context, radicalisation has been approached differently. According to one
definition, [radicalisation] refers to the wish to quash traditional and procedural
restrictions, supporting the status quo, which may inevitably be unfair and hinder
meaningful change (European Commission‘s Expert Group on Violent

1
Managing Director, Sundar STEM School and College, Lahore, Punjab, Pakistan.
2
Associate Professor at the Department of Political Science, Women University, Swabi, Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa (KP), Pakistan.
3
Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Peshawar, Peshawar, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
(KP), Pakistan. She is the Corresponding author of the paper. [email protected]
38 Tehmina Aslam, Ashfaq U. Rehman & Abida Bano

Radicalization, 2008, p. 5). Furthermore, the negative connotation accompanying

the term ‗radicalisation‘ often neglects that many individuals, once considered
‗radicals‘ or ‗extremists‘ later came to be regarded as renowned reformers and
revered political leaders (Awan & Blakemore, 2013: 6). Nelson Mandela is one
such example among many.
Violence prevails in all human societies, having had devastating effects on
numerous lives. Domestic violence is rampant in Pakistani society (Ali et al.,
2011). According to a report by the Human Rights Commission (2019), slapping,
threatening, pushing, punching, and kicking are also prevalent (ranging from 52 to
40 per cent. These violent crimes manifest lost morals and erroneous patriarchal
paragons.
The tools used in incidents of violence include acids, knives, and
strangulation. Only 20% (44 million) people are gun owners in Pakistan (Human
Rights Commission, 2017), meaning that guns and violent behaviour are not
causally related. Some other factors might affect the root of the issue, other than
merely allowing children to play with toy guns. This paper intends to explore the
underlying causes of violent conduct.
Toys can also aid in early childhood development by assisting children in
learning and exploring new things. Children play with toys to learn how to use
them and for what purpose they are used. This helps them open their minds and
resolve questions that may arise in the child's mind, making it a part of cognitive
development. Even though radicalism and violent extremism have been routinely
linked, the empirical evidence and scientific research on the causal relationship
between radicalism and violent extremism is circumstantial. Holding radical ideas
and acting upon them are two different things. Some espousing radical views
sometimes do not necessarily lead to deploying them through violent tactics or
acting on violent tendencies. Similarly, they may engage in acts of violence
without adhering to radical beliefs or being driven by radicalism. For instance,
during World War II, most of the Kamikaze Pilots who engaged in suicidal violent
acts did so because they thought they were duty-bound to it and out of social
pressure as opposed to radicalism or radical beliefs (Ohnuki-Tierney, 2006).

Literature Review
The scholarship on violent extremism and education has grown
tremendously over the past few years. One of the reasons for this trend might be
the growing interest of international organisations and the availability of funding
to study these concepts academically. Many academics and researchers have
investigated the relationship between violent extremism and educational
programmes and highlighted the role of various educational strategies and policies
 Pakistan Journal of Criminology 39
in affecting student behaviour (Christodoulou & Szakács, 2018, pp. 25–35;
Qurban et al., 2020). Another reason is the growing concern of policymakers in
countering violent extremism effectively, hence paying more attention to
prevention than cure (Christodoulou & Szakacs, 2018). Additionally, studies show
that schools have significantly promoted radicalisation (See Emma Broadbent et
al., 2017). Gensewing and Walsh (2021) describe the involvement of former
radicals in radicalising youth at schools through media.
Research studies note that radicalism is not ‗the primary‘ cause of violent
extremism; rather, it could be among one of the ‗potential‘ causes (Neumann,
2013; Hafez & Mullens, 2015; Borum, 2011; Aslam et al., 2020). Moreover, while
not all radicalism can lead to violent extremism, only some can. It is, therefore,
essential to draw a line between the one that can and cannot. Researchers have
categorised them into ‗non-violent radicalisation‘ and ‗violent radicalisation‘
(Veldhuis & Staun, 2009). They define non-violent radicalisation as the active
pursuit of far-reaching changes in society without necessarily accepting the use of
violent means to achieve those goals and violent radicalisation as the deliberate
pursuit of the declared objective while tolerating the use of force to accomplish
objectives (Veldhuis & Staun, 2009: 4).
Another similar distinction has been made between ‗cognitive
radicalisation‘ and ‗behavioural radicalisation‘. Cognitive radicalisation involves
the development of extremist beliefs and ideologies. In contrast, behavioural
radicalisation concerns radical action pathways resulting in committing terrorist
and violent extremist actions. These distinctions have been made to aid in
analysing these phenomena separately. The focus can be mainly on action
pathways rather than ideological elements (Dzhekova et al., 2016, p. 12). It has
been shown that adopting violent terrorist pathways does not necessarily need
holding extremist ideologies (Porta, 1995; Sageman, 2004). Porta and LaFree
argue that ―action (behaviour) and attitudes (aims and perceptions) are linked but
must not be understood as necessarily depending on or even corresponding to each
other‖ (Porta & LaFree, 2012, p. 7).
Furthermore, social movement research notes that ―becoming involved in
violent groups and engaging in acts of violence does not always presume
adherence to radical aims and frames of reference, but can be motivated by, for
example, personal relationships and loyalty to a group‖ (Neumann, 2013: 873).
Some have challenged this idea, claiming that it is impossible to have a
comprehensive knowledge of radicalisation by isolating political convictions from
political behaviour (Neumann, 2013: 873). Sprinzak (1991) posits that the
individual committing such acts begins elsewhere. He argues that ―none of the
40 Tehmina Aslam, Ashfaq U. Rehman & Abida Bano

terrorists starts directly by applying force or violence but that they reach terrorism
gradually‖ (p. 51).

Theoretical Perspectives
Sprinzak‘s theory raises two crucial questions: (1) is radicalisation a
necessary pre-requisite for violence? (2) Must all radicalisations end up in
violence? (Dzhekova, Stoynova, Tsenkov, 2016; 15). Veldhuis and Staun (2009)
define ―terrorism as one of the worst possible, but avoidable, outcomes of violent
radicalisation‖ (p.6). Alternatively, although every terrorist is a radical, not
everyone is a terrorist.‖ Here, terrorism is conceptualised as the product of
radicalisation, suggesting a causal relation between the two factors (Dzhekova et
al., 2016; p. 15).
Borum (2011a, 2011b, 2011c) suggests caution should be exercised when
linking radicalisation to terrorism. While many policies aimed at de-radicalization
have focused on this connection, Borum argues that radicalisation is only one of
several paths towards terrorism, and it cannot fully explain why some people with
radical beliefs resort to violence while others do not. Instead, he proposes that we
should consider radicalisation as just one of many possible pathways to terrorism
involvement. The broader question we should ask is how people become involved
in terrorism, stay involved, and sometimes disengage from it. According to Borum
(2011a, 2011b, 2011c), it is essential to approach the connection between
radicalisation and terrorism with caution. Although many de-radicalization
policies have focused on this link, Borum argues that radicalisation is just one of
several routes towards terrorism, and it cannot fully account for why some
individuals with radical beliefs turn to violence while others do not. Instead,
Borum suggests that we should view radicalisation as simply one of many possible
pathways to terrorism involvement. Ultimately, we should ask broader questions
about how people become involved in terrorism, remain involved, and sometimes
disengage.
In 2012, Demetriou argued that ideology plays a critical role in connecting
radical beliefs to violence. According to Demetriou, this connection is not
unidirectional but dialectic, where political radicalisation and violence are
interrelated. In other words, political violence may fuel political radicalisation and
vice versa. However, Demetriou (2012) suggests several other factors influencing
this dialectic relationship. For instance, social interactions and group dynamics
may shape an individual's radical beliefs and propensity towards violence (392).
Similarly, organisation and leadership may impact how individuals perceive and
engage in political violence. Therefore, Demetriou's view suggests that a
comprehensive understanding of violent political extremism requires an
 Pakistan Journal of Criminology 41
examination of the complex interplay between ideology, social interactions,
organisation, and leadership, as well as structures of power, mobilisation,
resources, and threats and opportunities.

Methodology
This paper engages a mixed methods approach. According to Mackenzie
and Knipe (2006), the pragmatic paradigm is linked to mixed research methods as
it allows the collection and analysis of a wide range of data from different sources
using different techniques. This research will be connected to the pragmatic
paradigm, focusing on solving real-world problems. The study uses quantitative
and qualitative approaches to understand the causes and impact of toy guns on
children, which can eventually take towards VE and radicalisation. Secondary
data, i.e. journal papers, articles, and academic research, is used for this study.

Survey
Quantitative data allows us to analyse the hypothesis and understand the
effect of toy guns on children. Patterns will include age, geography, education,
household follow-ups, applications used (which ones, for what purpose), etc. 6 to
15-year-olds, selected through convenience sampling, were watched in free play in
their schools and coded for real hostility, pretend aggression, rough-and-tumble
play (R & T), and nonaggressive pretend play to investigate the relationship
between toy gun play and aggression. The children were also coded based on four
factors. First, for the time they spent playing with toy guns during the break, then
the rated aggressive level of their favourite television shows, the rated aggressive
level of their favourite toys, and the amount of time their parents physically
punished them. In contrast, qualitative research explores the reasons, feelings and
emotions behind the use and attraction towards toy guns. This pattern helped me
understand many reactions and thinking about children with different backgrounds
and their similarities and differences.

Hypothesis
H1: Parents' demographic factors affected the toy gun purchasing decision.
H2: The child‘s demographic factor affected the toy gun purchasing decision.
H3: A child‘s attraction towards toy guns may lead to VE in future.
H4: The purpose factor also affected the decision to purchase the toy gun.

Data analysis
The theoretical approach and thematic analysis were used to analyse the
observations and hypothesis, which helped divide the responses into codes and
themes. Victoria Clarke and Virginia Braun (2022) argued that thematic analysis
42 Tehmina Aslam, Ashfaq U. Rehman & Abida Bano

is both deductive and inductive, as it allows the creation of common groups based
on the participants' results. Together with the analysis and survey results, these
thematic groups were used to formulate the research results.

Fixed Variable
In this research, age is the fixed variable. This research focuses on the effect of toy
guns on children, which can take them towards radicalisation or violent
extremism. For this purpose, age was a fixed variable, i.e. 9-15. As the children
were less than 18, permission was obtained from the school management.

Correlation between toy guns and violence

Some studies show a relationship between first-person shooter games and violence
(Anderson & Dill, 2000, pp. 788-789). Still, no studies have shown a relationship
between playing with toy guns as a child and engaging in violence as an adult.
However, the causality that violent games influence a child‘s aggressive behaviour
is not entirely clear here because most of the children studied in this regard, i.e.,
children who behaved aggressively in real life and violent video games, were
found to be aggressive in the baseline. This meant they had a natural tendency to
aggression.
The natural tendency to be aggressive in unlikely situations, which is
called ‗Trait Aggression‘ in behavioural science, is said to be the root cause of
children inclining towards violent video games in the first place. That said,
violence is a learned behaviour, and if anything, violent video games, television,
and films do two things: show how to carry out violence in times of distress and
that during such times, violence is our only way out and thus acceptable.

The Catharsis Hypothesis and Toy Guns

Lorenz (1966), Tinbergen (1968), and other ethnologists portrayed
animosity regarding energy that develops over the long haul. This energy should
be delivered or set off by a suitable outer improvement. The strength of the
improvement and the sum of gathered forceful energy decide the degree of the
forceful demonstration. This model of hostility suggests that forceful energy
should be delivered intermittently. Assuming the forceful energy is not delivered
by a suitable upgrade, then, at that point, animosity will be uprooted in the
presence of a frail upgrade. That is, it will take progressively less to invigorate
forceful conduct.
Regardless of the absence of help for the therapy speculation, the idea
motivated various individuals to explore the impact of play with toy guns on kids'
forcefulness. In light of the reason that forceful play would diminish hostility,
 Pakistan Journal of Criminology 43
Feshbach (1956), for instance, guessed that interest in forceful play diminishes
ensuing hostility.

Sources of Aggressive Behaviors

Violent behaviour encompasses a broad spectrum of actions, including,
but not restricted to, verbal outbursts, physical altercations, and even aggressive
behaviour toward objects or oneself. These behaviours can stem from various
underlying emotions, such as anger, frustration, or fear, and can significantly
impact both the individuals involved and society. While some individuals may
experience occasional outbursts of anger or frustration, the frequency and severity
of such behaviours can differ widely. However, it is vital to note that not all
violent behaviour is considered criminal. Instead, violent actions that result in
harm to others or their property are generally categorised as criminal behaviour
and can have severe consequences for the perpetrator. In summary, it is crucial to
acknowledge the intricate nature of violent behaviour and its effects on individuals
and society. Understanding the underlying causes of these behaviours and
implementing appropriate interventions can prevent the escalation of violent
behaviour and promote a safer and more harmonious community (Smith & Brown,
2023).
The causes of violent behaviour are expansive, complicated and deeply
interconnected. Previous studies have shown violent behaviour as a multi-causal
trait. There is no single factor that causes individuals to resort to violence.
Violence erupts from myriad factors, including those forming the violent person‘s
immediate or socio-cultural environment. An individual‘s internal proclivities, as
well as external environments, both determine and define hostile behaviour.
Observing forceful models advances forceful behaviour. The predominant
wellsprings of forceful models in the youngster's current circumstance are family,
peers and TV characters (Conyne et al., 2022).

Family
The family is a significant wellspring of hostility (Green, 1980). In savage
homes, youngsters are uncovered to both express and specific animosity. They
witness and are casualties of animosity. They, too, discover that hostility is a
satisfactory method for managing struggle. Forceful guardians go about as
forceful models. There is proof that kids imitate parental hostility. Youngsters
who witness hostility between their folks mimic this conduct with their kin.
Additionally, youngsters who have been rebuffed recreate this conduct with
different kids. (Steinmetz, 1977).
44 Tehmina Aslam, Ashfaq U. Rehman & Abida Bano

The family is an expected wellspring of animosity in various ways. Brutal grown-

ups serve as forceful models from whom youngsters learn forceful conduct.
Guardians likewise show kids that animosity is satisfactory by managing physical
discipline. Finally, hostility in the home might cause stress, which is a precursor to
hostility (Gershoff, 2002).

Peers
Animosity is gained from peers by the cycles portrayed in Bandura's
(1963) social learning hypothesis. Kids notice and emulate their companions'
forceful practices. This is especially so when more youth at school notice more
seasoned kids being compensated for forceful harassment. Friends can likewise go
about it as reinforcements of forceful conduct. Nursery school hostility was built
up if the casualty cried, submitted or pulled out (Patterson et al., 1967).
Aggressive or extremist peers are persuasive in animosity securing. They
go about as forceful models and support forceful conduct. Besides, they evoke
forceful conduct in latent youngsters. Cross-cultural comparisons show that
aggression tends to be more common in societies with rigid social organisation
than in those without it (Fry, 2017). Aggression increases with the hierarchical
social structures of chiefdoms, kingdoms, and states. These societies exhibit far
more warfare tendencies than relatively egalitarian bands and tribal cultures. This
could be because, in societies with hierarchical structures, it is the survival of the
fittest, which means competition. On the other side of the competition is a winner
and a loser. Competition takes a toll on one‘s mental health, and in the end, when
one loses despite all the hard work and effort they put in, it leaves a long-lasting
unlike impression.

Television
How much animosity is evoked by savagery depicted in the not entirely
settled by the apparent authenticity of the savagery? TV influences family
cooperation overall. Guardians who watch brutal TV endure more elevated levels
of hostility in their youngsters. Besides, TV might give a few guardians a
contorted thought of the job of animosity on the planet (Gerbner et al, 1980). For
the model, they might imagine that animosity is valuable in acquiring objectives
and ought to be empowered in this manner. In rundown, there are three ways in
which TV impacts youth animosity. In the first place, it gives forceful models
which kids might duplicate. Also, vicious TV programs increase excitement,
improving the probability of a forceful reaction. Thirdly, guardians who watch a
great deal of forceful TV endure and empower kids' forceful practices, which can
lead them to adapt to radical elements of society.
 Pakistan Journal of Criminology 45
Causal Linkage of Radicalization and VE with Toy Gun
There are at least four viewpoints regarding the causal relationship
between radicalisation and violent extremism. If there is a causal link between two
things, it simply means that one thing is responsible for causing the other thing
(Collins, n.d). If one has to say there is a causal link between radicalisation and
violent extremism, then radicalisation must be causing violent extremism. The
literature, however, is divided on the matter.
According to one viewpoint, there is no link whatsoever and radicalisation
and violent extremism or terrorism — its most common form- are distinct.
Veldhuis and Staun (2009) illuminate the difference: ―Terrorism [or violent
extremism] is above all a political tool that, irrespective of its success rate, is used
to bring about political or societal change. Radicalisation, on the other hand, is a
process of transformation that does not serve a clearly defined purpose and that
does not necessarily have to be related to violence‖ (Veldhuis & Staun, 2009: 6).
Hence, violent extremism is a tool with a clearly defined objective and an ulterior
political motive, while radicalisation, is an ever-occurring and ever-happening
process where beliefs and perceptions are constantly evolving and transforming.
Another viewpoint invokes that radicalisation and violent extremism are
interlinked. Spinzak (1991) argues that violent extremism is a product of the
radicalisation process called ‗transformational delegitimation‘ (p. 52). He further
notes that terrorist groups apply violent means gradually, but the beginning and
the end of the radicalisation process are not necessarily violent. Linked with the
discourse of causes of violent extremism is another important one: the execution
of violent extremism. What causes violent extremism is essential, but so is how
violent extremism is executed (See Ahmed et al., 2021). There is a somewhat
elaborated list of instruments that help in execution. Most instruments require
some rudimentary knowledge to operate them. The military and other forces
highly value the know-how and skill to operate weapons. Toy guns and pretend
aggressive plays act as cues and practice for natural aggression. Repeated
interactions with them play into cognitive rehearsal, in which aggressive scripts
are constructed and become increasingly available as action tendencies over time
(Huesmann & Eron, 1984).
Many variables impact youngster development: some factors are in
guardians' minds when buying toys. Item-evolving plans, quality, requests, and
innovation, are the fundamental factors that enormously impact guardians' toy
determination and purchasing conduct. Improvement has consistently been a
subject of interest among behaviourists, analysts, and analysts. Analysts have
created various hypotheses that help clarify various sections of kid improvement
and practices. (Bushman, 2002).
46 Tehmina Aslam, Ashfaq U. Rehman & Abida Bano

Many studies have linked aggressive fantasy and aggressive behaviour

positively. Feshbach‘s research found increased aggressive behaviour after
playing with aggressive objects in elementary school children (Feshbach, 1956).
Another study found that children who had engaged in fantasy play were more
aggressive in their response choices in a frustrating situation than the rest
(Lockwood & Roll, 1980). Another study showed something similar: angry
subjects who were asked to ruminate about the person who had upset them while
hitting a punching bag were subsequently more aggressive than subjects who had
hit the punching bag while thinking about exercise (Bushman, 2002). This last one
is interesting for two reasons: first, it confirms that people with aggressive
tendencies are more likely to engage with aggressive objects more aggressively,
and second, it shows that such objects could aid and reinforce their internal
aggressiveness.
There exists a consensus in social and behavioural psychology that
violence is a learned behaviour. Toy guns and pretend aggression play, along with
violent video games, television and films, are said to contribute to violent
extremism in precisely two ways: (1) by showing how to carry out violence in
times of conflict and (2) by approving violence as the only way out of that
situation and thus justifiable.

Progression of Radicalization into Violent Extremism

There is no single cause or standard path of radicalisation to violent
extremism or speed at which it happens (Dzhekova et al., 2016, p. 20). Violent
extremism results from a complex interplay of different factors, which are social,
political, economic, and environmental, playing out simultaneously at the
individual, local, and global levels. This makes it nearly impossible to pinpoint
any decisive factor that leads to the eventual act of violence (Ranstorp, 2010: 3-4).
Bjørgo‘s framework identifies several categories of root causes, including
structural, facilitating, motivational, and triggering (Bjørgo, 2005: 3-4). All
mentioned categories refer to factors that play a direct or indirect role in causing
violent behaviour. Moreover, Veldhuis and Staun (2009) also developed a multi-
cause model (micro and macro-level), explaining that macro-level causes provide
pre-conditions to radicalisation (p. 24). However, understanding micro-level
(individual and social) factors is salient to explain reasons for radicalisation.

Types of causes Types of

catalysts
 Pakistan Journal of Criminology 47
Macro level Political Trigger events
Economic
Cultural
Micro level Social societal recognition Recruitment
Social interactions and group dynamics Trigger events
Relative deprivation
Individual Psychological traits Recruitment
Personal knowledge/experiences Trigger events
Source: Veldhuis & Staun (2009: 23-24)

Three types of radicalism have been most studied: (1) Right-wing

radicalism, (2) Left-wing radicalism, and (3) Islamic radicalism. However, there
are other forms, such as ethno-nationalist radicalism (i.e. LTTE) and single-issue
radicalism (i.e., environmental radicalism). They differ in motivations, intensities,
and routes to terrorism. Nevertheless, there are commonalities across the three
regarding the factors and causes that lead to violence: perception of impotence to
affect political change, past training activity, political activity, proneness to
violence and experience of adverse meaningful events (RAND Europe, 2011).
Some consensus has been generated on pull factors (external), push
factors (internal), and the background environment (or contextual factors) in
which the interaction between pull and push factors is taking place. Push factors
are those that ‗drive‘ individuals towards violence. These include but are not
limited to marginalisation, inequality, discrimination, feelings of being persecuted,
poor education, denial of rights, and other grievances. As psychology has it, every
human action is predicated on some need. In the same way, every violent action is
predicated on manipulating some basic need. The acts of violent extremism,
Kruglanski says, are derived from exploitation of the most basic human need: the
need for significance (2014).
The quest for significance is a human drive to search for meaning,
purpose, and value in existence and being. It is the most fundamental human
motivation (Frankl, 2000; Becker, 1962; Maslow, 1943, 1967). Like any
motivation, the quest for significance must be activated, and it is activated by any
event that makes it acutely desirable. As Kruglanski explains, it is activated in
three ways: (1) loss of significance, (2) threat of loss of significance, and (3) gain
of significance. Loss of significance could occur in response to any of the push
factors stated above. Now, loss of significance is either personal or social. For
example, it is believed that in the case of black widows, the fact that they were
widows, which is considered a stigma to a woman‘s identity in many traditional
societies, may have contributed to perceptions of loss of significance, thus igniting
48 Tehmina Aslam, Ashfaq U. Rehman & Abida Bano

a spark for its restoration. Conversely, the motivation behind many of the terrorist
attacks on Western nations by Islamist radicals is to find justification for their
actions in foreign occupation, which they perceive as a threat to their Muslim
social identity.
Pull factors, on the other hand, are those that ‗attract‘ individuals towards
violent extremism, such as well-organized violent extremist groups that provide
services, revenue, and employment, an ideology which seeks to eliminate
ambiguity and provide answers. They also offer a ‗place to belong‘ and a
supportive environment. One thing common among people attracted to these
extremist organisations is the need for closure. The need for closure is defined as
having any answer on a given topic instead of further ambiguity (Webster &
Kruglanski, 1994). To put it differently, the desire for closure results in an intense
need for structure, order, and certainty to relieve the gnawing feeling of doubt,
which is frequently existential. (Kruglanski, 2014). Everyone gets stressed out by
uncertainty, wants answers, and desires closure occasionally. Such a feeling,
however, is momentary for most, persistent and profound in some. These
individuals needing closure are predisposed to seek the thought systems and
ideologies most provide. Extremist ideologies thus appeal to those needing
closure. As Kruglanski (2014) explains, it is for two reasons: (1) these ideologies
are very coherent, black and white, right or wrong (i.e., ordered, specific,
unambiguous); (2) they afford the possibility of becoming different, and part of a
larger whole (meaning by joining the ranks of such an organisation an individual
rises above self which corresponds with the earlier discussed need for
significance). In addition, that kind of belief system appeals to young people who
lack a clear sense of self-identity and yearning for significance.

Interpretation of Observation Results

The survey results indicated that most students, primarily boys, played
with toy weapons. Specifically, 61 per cent of the students reported playing with
toy guns, swords, or similar toys that mimic violence. Further analysis revealed
that parenting style and toy gun play were linked to increased levels of actual
violence in children, irrespective of gender. Specifically, the study found that the
level of parenting reprimand significantly impacted actual aggression in both boys
and girls. It also discovered that the number of toy gun plays predicted an
inclination to aggression in boys.
However, the study also found that when it came to pretend
aggressiveness, the level of violence in children's preferred toys was the best
predictor, while toy gun play was the most minor predictive factor. This means
that children who preferred toys with high levels of violence were more likely to
 Pakistan Journal of Criminology 49
engage in pretend aggressive play, even if they did not play with toy guns
specifically. Interestingly, the study found that toy gun play did not affect non-
aggressive pretend play, indicating that playing with toy guns did not necessarily
lead to more aggressive pretend play.
Lastly, the study found that parental punishment negatively impacted non-
aggressive pretend play. This means that children disciplined more strictly by their
parents were less likely to engage in pretend play that did not involve aggression.
These findings suggest that toy gun play and parental punishment are linked to
increased levels of actual violence but not pretend aggression.

Conclusion
Toys play a significant role in a child's personal and behavioural
development. Many parents are concerned about the impact of toys on their child's
behaviour. Parents consider their child's behaviour and growth when buying a toy.
Therefore, parents must choose toys carefully. Being selective is a top strategy,
and parents keep certain factors in mind that influence their toy purchasing
decisions. A study has shown that parents worry about the toys they choose for
their children. Toys are an essential tool for early childhood development, so both
teachers and parents must wisely select toys that can contribute to a child's
positive behavioural growth. Toys can help toddlers learn and improve
communication, social, and intellectual behaviour, significantly influencing a
child's personality and behaviour development. Toys play a crucial role in shaping
a child's personality and behaviour. As a result, many parents are understandably
concerned about the impact of toys on their child's behaviour. Parents usually buy
toys based on their child's behaviour and growth. Therefore, parents must be
careful when selecting toys for their children, considering certain factors that can
influence their toy-purchasing decisions.
According to studies, parents are increasingly concerned about the toys
they choose for their children. Toys are considered an essential tool for early
childhood development, and both teachers and parents must choose them wisely to
contribute to a child's positive behavioural growth. Toys can help toddlers learn
and improve their communication, social, and intellectual skills. Toys are an
excellent way for children to explore their environment, learn new skills, and have
fun. For example, building blocks can help children develop their problem-solving
skills, while puzzles can improve their cognitive skills.
Choosing appropriate toys for a child's age, interests, and skill level is
essential. For instance, a complicated toy may frustrate a child and negatively
impact their behaviour. Hence, parents must always consider their child's
developmental needs and abilities when selecting toys. In conclusion, toys
50 Tehmina Aslam, Ashfaq U. Rehman & Abida Bano

significantly impact a child's personality and behaviour development. Therefore,

parents must be careful when choosing toys for their children, considering factors
such as age, interests, and skill level. Parents can help children learn, develop
essential skills, and positively shape their behaviour by selecting suitable toys.

Recommendations
1. Children should be provided with alternative play choices such as arts and
crafts or physical games rather than offering them toy guns or any other
toys that could potentially incite violence.
2. Awareness sessions should be held for parents of young children to
educate them about healthy ways of raising children.
3. Schools should have sessions to teach the value of peace, mutual respect
and tolerance.
4. The media and community also have a role in eradicating the culture of
‗violence‘ from neighbourhoods, streets, and schools.

References
Ahmed, S., Sajid, I. A., & Butt, B. I. (2021). Religion, Community Resilience and
Countering Violent Extremism in Dir Valley, Pakistan. Journal of
Humanities, Social and Management Sciences (JHSMS), 2(2), 213–227.
https://doi.org/10.47264/idea.jhsms/2.2.16
Ali, T. S., Asad, N., Mogren, I., & Krantz, G. (2011). Intimate partner violence in
urban Pakistan: Prevalence, frequency, and risk factors. International
Journal of Women's Health, 3, 105-115.
https://doi.org/10.2147/IJWH.S17016
Aslam, T., Rizvi, S. M. A. S., & Aslam, M. A. (2020). Counter-Terrorism: Push
and Pull Factors Impacting Male Youth Involved in Violent Extremism in
Punjab, Pakistan. Liberal Arts and Social Sciences International Journal
(LASSIJ), 4(1), 303–316. https://doi.org/10.47264/idea.lassij/4.1.26
Awan, I. & Blakemore, B. (eds.) (2013). Extremism, Counter-terrorism and
Policing. Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate.
Bakowski, P. (2022, November). Preventing radicalisation in the European Union:
How EU policy has evolved. Retrieved from
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2022/739213/EPR
S_IDA(2022)739213_EN.pdf
 Pakistan Journal of Criminology 51
3 Becker, W. C. (1962). Consequences of different kinds of parental discipline.
Annual Review of Psychology, 13, 1-34.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.13.020162.000245
Bjørgo, T. (ed.) (2005). Root Causes of Terrorism: Myths, Reality, and Ways
Forward. London: Routledge.
Borum, R. (2011a). Radicalisation into Violent Extremism: A Review of Social
Science Theories. Journal of Strategic Security, 4(4), 7–36.
Borum, R. (2011b). Radicalisation into Violent Extremism II: A Review of
Conceptual Models and Empirical Research. Journal of Strategic Security,
4(4), 37–62.
Borum, R. (2011c). Rethinking Radicalisation. Journal of Strategic Security, 4(4),
1–6.
Braun, V., Clarke, V., & Hayfield, N. (2019). ‗A starting point for your journey,
not a map‘: Nikki Hayfield in conversation with Virginia Braun and
Victoria Clarke about thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 19(2), 424–445.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2019.1670765
Buijs, F.J., Demant, F. & Hamdy, A. (2006). Strijders van eigen bodem. Radicale
en democratische moslims in Nederland. Amsterdam University Press.
Bushman BJ. (2002). Does venting anger feed or extinguish the flame? Catharsis,
rumination, distraction, anger and aggressive responding. Pers Soc
Psychol Bull 28:724–731.
Choudhury, T. (2007). The Role of Muslim Identity Politics in Radicalisation (A
Study in Progress). London: Department for Communities and Local
Government.
Christodoulou, E. (2020). ―Boosting resilience‖ and ―safeguarding youngsters at
risk‖: Critically examining the European Commission‘s educational
responses to radicalisation and violent extremism. London Review of
Education, 18 (1): 18–34. https://doi.org/10.18546/LRE.18.1.02
Christodoulou, E., & Szakács, S. (2018). Preventing violent extremism through
education: international and German approaches. Braunschweig: Georg
Eckert Institute. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Simona-Szakacs-
accessed on 20/4/2024.
Coyne, S. M., Warburton, W. A., Essig, L. W., & Stockdale, L. A. (2022).
Modelling aggression: The impact of family, peers, and media on
aggressive behaviour. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 101677.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2021.101677
Collins. (n.d). In Collins Dictionary. Retrieved on January 01, 2021, from
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/causal-
52 Tehmina Aslam, Ashfaq U. Rehman & Abida Bano

link#:~:text=adjective%20%5Busually%20ADJECTIVE%20noun%5D,fo
r%20causing%20the%20other%20thing
Demetriou, C. (2012). Political Radicalization and Political Violence in Palestine
(1920 – 1948), Ireland (1850 – 1921), and Cyprus (1914 – 1959). Social
Science History, 36(3), 391–420.
Emma Broadbent et al. (2017). ‗Generation Z: Global Citizenship Survey‘, report
(Varkey Foundation), 9.
https://www.varkeyfoundation.org/media/4487/global-young-people-
report-single-pages-new.pdf.
European Commission‘s Expert Group on Violent Radicalisation. (2008).
Radicalisation Processes Leading to Acts of Terrorism, submitted to the
European Commission on 15 May 2008.
Frank, V. E. (2000). Man's search for ultimate meaning. New York: Basic Books.
Feshbach S. (1956). The catharsis hypothesis and some consequences of
interaction with aggressive and neutral play objects. J Pers 24:449–462.
Gershoff, E. T. (2002). Corporal punishment by parents and associated child
behaviours and experiences: A meta-analytic and theoretical review.
Psychological Bulletin, 128(4), 539-579. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-
2909.128.4.539
Gansewig, A., & Walsh, M. (2021). Preventing Violent Extremism with Former
Extremists in Schools: A Media Analysis of the Situation in
Germany. Terrorism and Political Violence, 35(1), 47–64.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09546553.2020.1862802
Gurr, T. (1970). Why Men Rebel. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Hafez, M., & Mullins, C. (2015). The radicalisation puzzle: A theoretical
synthesis of empirical approaches to homegrown extremism. Studies in
Conflict and Terrorism, 38(11), 958–975.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1057610X.2015.1051375
Human Rights Commission of Pakistan. (2019). State of Human Rights in 2018.
Lahore: Human Rights Commission of Pakistan. Retrieved from
https://hrcp-web.org/publication/book/
Huesmann, L. R., & Eron, L. D. (1984). Cognitive processes and the persistence
of aggressive behaviour. Aggressive Behavior, 10(3), 243–
251. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2337(1984)10:3<243::AID-
AB2480100308>3.0.CO;2-6
Institute for Safety, Security and Crisis Management. (2008). Radicalisation,
Recruitment and the EU Counter-radicalisation Strategy. Brussels:
European Commission.
 Pakistan Journal of Criminology 53
Jensma, F. (2008). Niet zomaar te straffen voor terrorisme, NRC Handelsblad, 24
January.
Juergensmeyer, M. (2000). Terror in the mind of God. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Kruglanski, A. & Orehek, E. (2011). The role of the quest for personal
significance in motivating terrorism. In J. Forgas, A. Kruglanski, & K.
Williams (Eds.), The psychology of social conflict and aggression (pp.
153–164). New York: Psychology Press.
Lockwood, J. L., & Roll, S. (1980). Effects of fantasy behaviour, level of fantasy
predisposition, age, and sex on the direction of aggression in young
children. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 136(2), 255–264.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00221325.1980.10534119
Mackenzie, N., & Knipe, S. (2006). Research dilemmas: Paradigms, methods and
methodology. Issues in Educational Research, 16(2), 193–205. Retrieved
from
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=57980f
6becd5b24a2f5d8a99f96b428c8e72ddc1
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review,
50(4), 370–396.
Maslow, A. H. (1967). A theory of meta-motivation: The biological rooting of the
value-life. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 7(2), 93–127.
Neumann, P. R. (2013). The trouble with radicalisation. International Affairs,
89(4), 873–893. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12049
Ohnuki-Tierney, E. (2007). Kamikaze diaries: Reflections of Japanese student
soldiers. University of Chicago Press.
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=57980f
6becd5b24a2f5d8a99f96b428c8e72ddc1.
Official Journal of the European Union, L 111/9. (2006, April 25). Radicalisation
processes lead to acts of terrorism.
https://www.clingendael.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/20080500_cscp_repor
t_vries.pdf
Pape, R. A. (2006, November 1). Suicide terrorism and democracy: What we have
learned since 9/11’. Policy Analysis.
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/what-weve-learned-about-
suicide-terrorism-911
Qurban, S., Amin, H., & Siddiqa, M. (2020). Discourse of Pakistan‘s Identity
under Strand of Liberal Citizenship: A Case Study of Musharraf
Education Policy Reforms. Liberal Arts and Social Sciences International
54 Tehmina Aslam, Ashfaq U. Rehman & Abida Bano

Journal (LASSIJ), 4(1), 189–202.

https://doi.org/10.47264/idea.lassij/4.1.17
RAND Europe. (2011). Synthesis report on the results from work package 2:
Inventory of the factors of radicalisation and counter-terrorism
interventions. SAFIRE FP7 Grant Agreement no. 24174.
Rashid, A. (2003). Terror in the Name of God: Why Religious Militants Kill. Far
Eastern Economic Review, 166(49), 60–60. URL:
https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=6216896
Ranstorp, M. (2010). Understanding violent radicalisation: Terrorist and Jihadist
movements in Europe. Routledge.
Richardson, L. (2007). What terrorists want: Understanding the enemy,
containing the threat. Random House.
Smith, J. A., & Brown, L. M. (2023). Preventing violence: Strategies for
promoting community safety and harmony. Journal of Social Behavior and
Community Development, 15(4), 234–250.
https://doi.org/10.1000/jsbcd.v15i4.2023
Sprinzak, E. (1991). The process of delegitimation: Towards a linkage theory of
political terrorism. Terrorism and Political Violence, 3(1), 50–68.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09546559108427092
Sprinzak, E. (1995). Right‐wing terrorism in a comparative perspective: The case
of Split Delegitimization. Terrorism and Political Violence, 7(1), 17–43.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09546559508427284
Stern, J. (2002). The ultimate terrorists. Library of Congress, NLS/BPH.
Stern, J. (2003). Terror in the Name of God: Why religious militants kill. Ecco.
Veldhuis, T., & Staun, J. (2009). Islamist radicalisation: A root cause model. The
Hague: Netherlands Institute of International Relations Clingendael.
Victoroff, J. (2005). The mind of the terrorist. Journal of Conflict Resolution,
49(1), 3–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002704272040