For a long time, the major scholars and commentators on the topic of suicide terrorism were political scientists and sociologists, and psychologists have been late in applying their discipline to the issue. An early article by Lester et al. (Reference Lester, Yang and Lindsay2004) argued that suicide bombers were, in all likelihood, similar to other types of suicidal individuals, and this was followed by confirming evidence in a book by Merari (Reference Merari2010) and now a convincing argument in The Myth of Martyrdom by Lankford (Reference Lankford2013c). It is now clear that many suicide bombers fit the profile of typical suicidal individuals.

Research into the mind of suicide bombers has been hindered by the inability of researchers to interview them. As is the case in all suicide research, the methods of substitute subjects (Neuringer Reference Neuringer1962) is used. Just as researchers study those who survive their suicidal actions (attempted suicides), so Merari (Reference Merari2010) interviewed those who did not set off their bombs or whose bombs failed to detonate as planned. It has been argued that completed suicides and attempted suicides are quite different (although overlapping) populations (Linehan Reference Linehan1986) and that we cannot learn about completed suicides by studying attempted suicides. Perhaps as a result of the countries in which suicide bombings occur and the absence of skilled suicidologists, no psychological autopsy studies have been carried out on successful suicide bombers. The result has been a reliance on reports of suicide bombers from journalists. Two things are noteworthy here. First, journalists are not trained in suicidology and, therefore, do not know what questions to ask and what kinds of information to search for. Second, journalists have been much more inquisitive into the past lives and motivations of female suicide bombers than those of male suicide bombers, and Lester (Reference Lester2011) was able, from these reports, to document the role of perceived burdensomeness (to their families) of female suicide bombers, the role of post-traumatic stress, and the oppression by their husbands and families forcing them into this role.

Let us assume, therefore, that many suicide bombers have many of the same characteristics and life histories as typical suicides, as Lankford has forcefully argued. The next question that we have to consider is why suicide bombers chose this type of suicidal action. There are other options, even leaving aside the possibility of guerilla action in which individuals attempt to kill as many of their perceived enemies as possible and then escape to kill again.

One suicidal protest action that is possible is a hunger strike (Dingley & Mollica Reference Dingley and Mollica2007). Recently, in 2013, many of the prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay by the United States are on hunger strike to protest their imprisonment. Bobby Sands was a member of the Irish Republican Army in Northern Ireland and was imprisoned by the British courts for his activities. He went on a hunger strike while in prison and died in H Block of HMP Maze (Long Kesh) prison on May 5th, 1981, at the age of 27. Lester (Reference Lester2014) analyzed the diary left by Bobby Sands during his hunger strike and found that it did not resemble the diaries left by those who died by suicide.

Another option is dying by suicide as a protest, most commonly by self-immolation (Biggs Reference Biggs and Gambetta2005). After centuries of self-immolations, the most noteworthy recent cases occurred in 1963 by the Vietnamese Buddhist monk, Thich Quang Duc, to protest the regime in South Vietnam; in 1965 by Norman Morrison in Washington DC to protest America's involvement in the Vietnam War; and in 1968 by Jan Palach in Prague (Czechoslovakia) to protest the Soviet invasion of his country. Today, self-immolations have been documented in South Korea (Park & Lester Reference Park and Lester2009), and self-immolations are common across the Arab world (e.g., in Bahrain, Jordan, and Lebanon), in Andhra Pradesh in India where more than 300 young people have committed suicide (many by self-immolation) to demand local political control, and, most notably, in Tibet where more than 100 self-immolations have occurred in the last year to protest the Chinese oppression of native Tibetans. Indeed, it was the self-immolation of Tarek al-Tayeb Mohamed Bouazizi, a Tunisian street vendor, who set himself on fire on December 17th, 2010, that led to the “Arab Spring” and the recent revolutions in many Arab countries.

We then confront the next question following Lankford's persuasive argument. What determines the choice of suicidal protest – hunger strike, self-immolation, or suicide bombing? An obvious determinant is the availability of methods for protest. Incarcerated prisoners have high rates of suicide, even on death row (Tartaro & Lester Reference Tartaro and Lester2009), but ways of protesting are severely limited, leaving hunger strikes as perhaps the only option other than rioting. It is also noteworthy that self-immolation is a common way of protesting for priests, as has occurred recently in Tibet, and in Vietnam in the 1960s. However, the majority of those engaging in self-immolation as protest are not priests, but ordinary citizens.

There are, of course, no studies comparing these three types of action, and certainly not studies using the same type of investigation. However, the most obvious difference is the apparent role of anger. Hunger strikes and self-immolations attempt to change public opinion by the simple act of dying by one's own hand and the resulting publicity. Suicide bombers, however, are seeking to kill and injure others while also dying themselves. Thich Quang Duc and Norman Morrison were angry at their governments, but suicide bombers focus this anger onto individuals of the nation or culture at which they are angry. The brothers from Chechnya (Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev) who killed bystanders at the Boston marathon on April 15, 2013, focused their anger, not on Russia or the United States, but on civilians watching a sporting event. From a psychological point of view, what events and experiences in their childhood, adolescence, and adulthood, which personality traits, and which neurophysiological processes led them to make this choice?

It is often said that answering one question leads to many more questions. Lankford's excellent book answered one question and now leads us to ask more.