This study aims to understand the fundamental concepts and reasons behind the emergence of religious terror activities in Indonesia, providing an 'insider' rather than an 'outsider' view. Data were collected from a total of 40 religious terror activists in Indonesia using a set of focused group discussions and interviews. The reasons they provided for their terror activities were as follows: (1) Indonesia is seen as being in a state of war (thus justifying a defensive attack); (2) Suicide bombing is believed to be noble; (3) The West (as a whole) is targeted as it is considered the invader of Muslim countries and a representative of evil; the Indonesian government is viewed as its corrupt ally.

The present study aims to understand the role of ingroup and outgroup metaprejudice in predicting prejudice and identity undermining. I predicted that ingroup metaprejudice would mediate the effect of outgroup metaprejudice on prejudice and identity undermining either on minority subgroup or minority outgroup. The results from the majority of Sunni Muslim participants (N ϭ 214) targeting Ahmadiyya (i.e., minority subgroup of Islam) and Christians (i.e., minority outgroup) showed that the effect of outgroup metaprejudice on prejudice, and identity undermining through ingroup metaprejudice, was significant. In general, the findings indicate that what group members think of what others are thinking may play a key role in influencing intergroup relations and perceptions.

The present study aims to understand when and how acts of terrorism are supported and denounced by Islamic fundamentalists in Indonesia. We predicted that the belief in establishing Islam peacefully and rationalization of violent action would moderate the Islamic fundamentalism–support for acts of terrorism relationship. The result of the research of 309 Muslim participants shows that the relationship between Islamic fundamentalism and support for terrorism acts was positively significant for Muslims holding low belief in establishing Islam peacefully and high rationalization of violent attack. However, the relationship was negatively significant at high level of belief in establishing Islam peacefully and rationalization of violent attack. The findings indicate that Islamic fundamentalism may potentially support violent as well as nonviolent acts under some certain conditions.

Samples of two hundred forty‐five majority Sunny Muslims, 87 Ahmadiyya Muslims, and 145 Christians were used to investigate the determinants and mediators of prejudice in interreligious context in Indonesia. First, the study extends the idea of in‐group and out‐group metaprejudice; both of which were found to mediate the relationship between perceived quality of intergroup relationship and personal prejudice. Second, we expected that majority members are more likely to reject a minority and that a minority is more likely to more strongly reject another minority than the majority for self‐serving reasons. Additionally, the Sunni majority will prejudice and reject the Ahmadiyya minority more than the Christian minority due to the strained religious relation between the two Muslim groups. The hypotheses were confirmed. The findings are discussed in the context of stereotyping, and prejudice dynamics in other intergroup conflicts and ways of coping with such conflict are suggested.