Public Reaction to Terrorist Threat

[Triple Zero]

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/11/public_reaction.html

For the last five years we have researched the connection between times of terrorist threats and public opinion. In a series of tightly designed experiments, we expose subsets of research participants to a news story not unlike the type that aired last week. We argue that attitudes, evaluations, and behaviors change in at least three politically-relevant ways when terror threat is more prominent in the news. Some of these transformations are in accord with conventional wisdom concerning how we might expect the public to react. Others are more surprising, and more disconcerting in their implications for the quality of democracy.

One way that public opinion shifts is toward increased expressions of distrust. In some ways this strategy has been actively promoted by our political leaders. The Bush administration repeatedly reminded the public to keep eyes and ears open to help identify dangerous persons. A strategy of vigilance has also been endorsed by the new secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano.

Nonetheless, the breadth of increased distrust that the public puts into practice is striking. Individuals threatened by terrorism become less trusting of others, even their own neighbors. Other studies have shown that they become less supportive of the rights of Arab and Muslim Americans. In addition, we found that such effects extend to immigrants and, as well, to a group entirely remote from the subject of terrorism: gay Americans. The specter of terrorist threat creates ruptures in our social fabric, some of which may be justified as necessary tactics in the fight against terrorism and others that simply cannot.

Another way public opinion shifts under a terrorist threat is toward inflated evaluations of certain leaders. To look for strong leadership makes sense: crises should impel us toward leadership bold enough to confront the threat and strong enough to protect us from it. But the public does more than call for heroes in times of crisis. It projects leadership qualities onto political figures, with serious political consequences.

In studies conducted in 2004, we found that individuals threatened by terrorism perceived George W. Bush as more charismatic and stronger than did non-threatened individuals. This projection of leadership had important consequences for voting decisions. Individuals threatened by terrorism were more likely to base voting decisions on leadership qualities rather than on their own issue positions or partisanship. You did read that correctly. Threatened individuals responded with elevated evaluations of Bush's capacity for leadership and then used those inflated evaluations as the primary determinant in their voting decision.

These findings did not just occur among Republicans, but also among Independents and Democrats. All partisan groups who perceived Bush as more charismatic were also less willing to blame him for policy failures such as faulty intelligence that led to the war in Iraq.

[...]

A third way public opinion shifts in response to terrorism is toward greater preferences for policies that protect the homeland, even at the expense of civil liberties, and active engagement against terrorists abroad. Such a strategy was advocated and implemented by the Bush administration. Again, however, we found that preferences shifted toward these objectives regardless of one's partisan stripes and, as well, outside the U.S.

[The Johnny]

Its interesting, but not surprising.

[Requia ☣]

How much did the change occur among democrats and independents?  The same? less? more?

[Triple Zero]

How should I know? Read the sources

[Cain]

Incidentally, all of this is why terrorism fails - at least as a revolutionary/spectacle/propaganda of the deed style of event.

People like the Red Brigades and Red Army Faction actually thought they could use terrorism to awake the masses from their consumerist slumber.  Religious terrorism is only slightly more successful because it is better at manipulating imagery and symbols with deep roots within their communities.

[Mangrove]

Cain,

Have you heard of:

http://www.amazon.com/How-Terrorism-Ends-Understanding-Terrorist/dp/0691139482/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259091177&sr=8-1

I picked this up in the bookstore the other day and read a large-ish chunk of the conclusion. Was wondering if you've a) heard of it
          b) read it
          c) what you thought

[Cain]

No, I don't think I have.

But if the author works for the RAND corporation, then I've read the paper it is based off, which suggests:

policing and intelligence work best
strike the shepherd and the sheep will scatter
create and nuture non-violent groups who want the same thing the terrorists do (and be prepared to make concessions)
dont expect immediate results.

[Mangrove]

No, I don't think I have.

But if the author works for the RAND corporation, then I've read the paper it is based off, which suggests:

policing and intelligence work best
strike the shepherd and the sheep will scatter
create and nuture non-violent groups who want the same thing the terrorists do (and be prepared to make concessions)
dont expect immediate results.

The gist I got from the final chapter was: (and to be fair this book I really need to buy and read the whole thing)

a) Terrorism comes & goes in phases.
b) Al Qaeda will probably go too because it bears a number of hallmarks of prior groups that also ended.
c) However Al Qaeda possess a number of new traits which, if not properly understood or exploited will extend their reign and range.
d) AQ has a lot of disorganized fringe dwellers - provide them with more attractive alternatives to suck away the membership base.
e) Making the 'war on terror' a 'personal campaign' against Osama et al is a waste of time. Every time a 'major figure' is either captured or killed, it seems to make no difference because all the military are doing is killing middle management who are easily replaced.

From what I can gather, the book looks at classic scenarios whereby terror groups either
a) Schism and self-annhiliate
b) Quit terrorism to move towards legitimacy
c) Get squished by overwhelming governmental firepower

It isn't just about Islamic terrorism (so called) but studies a number of other groups, all over the world for most of the past century.