The authors examine how changes in perceptions of threat affect individuals’ policy views as well as the political implications of this relationship. They administered a survey experiment to a representative sample of the U.S. population in which they exogenously manipulated individuals’ perceived likelihood of a future terrorist attack on American soil and assessed subsequent changes in support for terrorism-related public policies. They find that reducing perceived threat substantially decreases support for policies intended to combat terrorism and that this effect is concentrated among Democrats who believe another terrorist attack is likely to occur. These results suggest that threat, as part of the larger information environment, can alter partisan divisions on controversial policies.
BraderTed. 2005. Striking a responsive chord: How political ads motivate and persuade voters by appealing to emotions. American Journal of Political Science49:388–405.
2.
BraderTed. 2006. Campaigning for hearts and minds. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
3.
BradyHenryAnsolabehereStephen D.1989. The nature of utility functions in mass publics. American Political Science Review83:143–64.
4.
BramborThomasClarkWilliamGolderMatt. 2006. Understanding interaction models: Improving empirical analysis. Political Analysis14:63–82.
5.
CohenGeoffrey L.2003. Party over policy: The dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology85:808–22.
6.
DavisDarren W.2007. Negative liberty: Public opinion and the terrorist attacks on America. New York: Russell Sage.
7.
DavisDarren W.SilverBrian D.2004. Civil liberties vs. security: Pubic opinion in the context of the terrorist attacks on America. American Journal of Political Science48:28–46.
8.
FeldmanStanleyStennerKaren. 1997. Perceived threat and authoritarianism. Political Psychology18:741–70.
9.
FestingerLeon. 1957. A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row Peterson.
10.
FischerPeterGeitemeyerTobiasKastenmullerAndreasFreyDieterObwaldSilvia. 2007. Terror salience and punishment: Does terror salience induce threat to social order?Journal of Experimental Social Psychology43:964–71.
11.
FischhoffBaruchGonzalezRoxana M.LernerJennifer S.SmallDeborah A.2005. Evolving judgments of terror risks: Foresight, hindsight, and emotion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied11: 124-139.
12.
GadarianShana Kushner. 2010. The politics of threat: How terrorism news shapes foreign policy attitudes. Journal of Politics72:469–83.
13.
GerberAlan S.GreenDonald P.1998. Rational learning and partisan attitudes. American Journal of Political Science42:794–818.
14.
GershkoffAmyKushnerShana. 2005. The 9/11–Iraq connection in the Bush administration’s rhetoric. Perspectives on Politics3:525–37.
15.
GibsonJames L.GouwsAmanda. 2003. Overcoming intolerance in South Africa. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
16.
GoodwinRobinWilsonMichelleGainesStanleyJr.2005. Terror threat perception and its consequences in contemporary Britain. British Journal of Psychology96: 389–406.
17.
HastieTrevor J.TibshiraniRobert J.1990. Generalized additive models. London: Chapman and Hall.
18.
HetheringtonMarcWeilerJonathan. 2009. Divided we stand: Polarization, authoritarianism, and the contemporary political divide. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
19.
HuddyLeonieFeldmanStanleyCapelosTheresaProvostColin. 2002. The consequences of terrorism: Disentangling the effects of personal and national threat. Political Psychology23:485–509.
20.
HuddyLeonieFeldmanStanleyTaberCharlesLahavGallya. 2005. Threat, anxiety, and support of antiterrorism policies. American Journal of Political Science49:593–608.
21.
JacobsonGary C.2007. A divider, not a uniter. New York: Pearson Longman.
22.
JoslynMark R.Haider-MarkelDonald P.2007. Sociotropic concerns and support for counterterrorism policies. Social Science Quarterly88:306–19.
23.
KamCindy D.KinderDonald R.2007. Terror and ethnocentrism: Foundations of American support for the war on terrorism. Journal of Politics69:318–36.
24.
KamCindy D.RamosJennifer M.2008. Joining and leaving the rally: Understanding the surge and decline in presidential approval following 9/11. Public Opinion Quarterly72:619–50.
25.
KeeleLuke. 2008. Semiparametric regression for the social sciences. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley.
26.
KreulLee M.1982. Magic numbers: Psychological aspects of menu pricing. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly23:70–75.
27.
LavineHowardLodgeMiltonFreitasKate. 2005. Threat, authoritarianism, and selective exposure to information. Political Psychology26:219–44.
28.
LernerJennifer S.GonzalezRoxana M.SmallDeborah A.BaruchFischhoff. 2003. Effects of fear and anger on perceived risks of terrorism: A national field experiment. Psychological Science14:144–50.
29.
MarcusGeorge E.NeumanW. RussellMacKuenMichael. 2000. Affective intelligence and political judgment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
30.
MarcusGeorgeJohnE.SullivanL.Theiss-MorseElizabethWoodSandra L.1995. With malice toward some: How people make civil liberties judgments. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
31.
MerollaJenniferJenniferL.RamosM.ZechmeisterElizabeth J.2007. Crisis, charisma, and consequences: Evidence from the 2004 U.S. presidential elections. Journal of Politics69:30–42.
32.
MerollaJennifer L.ZechmeisterElizabeth J.2009. Democracy at risk: How terrorist threats affect the public. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
33.
PrattoF.SiddaniusJ.StallworthL. M.MalleB. F.1994. Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology63:741–63.
34.
RahnWendy M.1993. The role of partisan stereotypes in information processing about political candidates. American Journal of Political Science37:472–96.
35.
RahnWendy M.KrosnickJon A.BreuningMarijke. 1994. Rationalization and derivation processes in survey studies of political candidate evaluation. American Journal of Political Science38:582–600.
36.
SchindlerRobert M.KirbyPatrick N.1997. Patterns of rightmost digits used in advertised prices: Implications for nine-ending effects. Journal of Consumer Research24: 192–201.
37.
SkitkaLinda J.BaumanChristopher W.MullenElizabeth. 2004. Political tolerance and coming to psychological closure following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks: An integrative approach. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin30:743–56.
38.
SlovicPaulFinucanMelissa L.PetersEllenMacGregorDonald G.2004. Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Analysis24:311–22.
39.
SlovicPaulFischhoffBaruchLichtensteinSarah. 1977. Behavioral decision theory. American Review of Psychology28:1–39.
40.
StoufferSamuel A.1955. Communism, conformity and civil liberties. New York: Doubleday.
41.
SullivanJohn L.PieresonJ.MarcusGeorge E.1982. Political tolerance and American democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
42.
TaberCharles S.LodgeMilton. 2006. Motivated skepticism in political information processing. American Journal of Political Science50:755–69.
43.
TverskyAmosKahnemanDaniel. 1973. Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology5:207–32.
44.
ValentinoNicholas A.HutchingsVincent L.BanksAntoine J.DavisAnne K.2008. Is a worried citizen a good citizen? Emotions, political information seeking, and learning via the Internet. Political Psychology29:247–73.
45.
WangT. Y.ChangG. Andy. 2006. External threats and political tolerance in Taiwan. Political Research Quarterly59:377–88.
46.
WillerRobb. 2004. The effects of government-issued terror warnings on presidential approval ratings. Current Research in Social Psychology10:1–12.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
