The authors examine public attitudes toward urban terrorism, focusing on whether emotion or reason is a more important determinant of how people feel. Using the results of a public opinion survey in a large, northeastern city, the authors find that both emotion and reason affect people’s reactions to terrorist attacks. However, this relationship is affected by personal conversation. The more people talk about terrorism, the greater the chance reason rather than fear will dictate reactions. These results have important ramifications for how urban officials deal with homeland security and assuage citizens whose excessive concerns about terrorism have led to costly security expenditures.
Ackerman, Bruce, and James Fishkin. 2004. Deliberation day. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press.
2.
Baldassare, Mark, Christopher Hoene, and Jonathan Cohen. 2003. Local homeland security in California: Surveys of city officials and state residents. Unpublished report, Public Policy Institute of California.
3.
Bohrnstedt, George, and David Knoke. 1988. Statistics for social data analysis. 2nd ed.Itasca, IL: Peacock.
4.
Brown University. 2004. Providence residents not very worried about terrorist attacks. Unpublished report, Brown University.
5.
Converse, Philip. 1964. The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In Ideology and discontent, edited by David Apter, 206-261. London: Free Press.
6.
Eisinger, Peter. 2004. The American City in the age of terror: A preliminary assessment of the effects of 9/11. Paper presented at the Urban Affairs Association conference. Washington, DC, April.
7.
Fiorina, Morris. 1981. Retrospective voting in American national elections. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press.
Harrigan, James, and Philippe Martin. 2002. Terrorism and the resilience of cities. FRBNY Economic Policy ReviewNovember:97-116.
10.
Herbst, Susan. 1993. Numbered voices: How opinion polling has shaped American politics. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
11.
Hibbing, John, and Elizabeth Theiss-Morse. 1998. The media’s role in public negativity toward Congress: Distinguishing emotional reactions and cognitive evaluations. American Journal of Political Science42 (2):475-498.
12.
Hutcheson, John, David Domke, Andre Billeaudeaux, and Philip Garland. 2004. U.S. national identity, political elites, and patriotic press following September 11. Political Communication21 (1):27-50.
13.
Kuklinski, James, Paul Sniderman, Kathleen Knight, Thomas Piazza, Philip Tetlock, Gordon Lawrence, and Barbara Mellers. 1997. Racial prejudice and attitudes toward affirmative action. American Journal of Political Science41 (2):402-419.
14.
Lee, Christopher. 2004. Most say they are less safe since 9/11. Washington Post, April 1, A3.
15.
Marcus, George, and Michael MacKuen. 1993. Anxiety, enthusiasm, and the vote: The emotional underpinnings of learning and involvement during presidential campaigns. American Political Science Review87 (3):672-685.
16.
Murray, Richard, and Bob Stein. n.d. Houston’s future after 9/11. Unpublished paper, University of Houston and Rice University.
17.
Mutz, Diana. 1998. Impersonal influence: How perceptions of mass collectives affect political attitudes. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.
18.
Nadeau, Richard, Richard Niemi, and Timothy Amato. 1995. Emotions, issue importance, and political learning. American Journal of Political Science39 (3):558-574.
19.
Page, Benjamin, and Robert Shapiro. 1992. The rational public. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
20.
Price, Vincent, Joseph Cappella, and Lilach Nir. 2002. Does disagreement contribute to more deliberative opinion?Political Communication19 (1):95-112.
21.
Savitch, H. V.2003. Does 9-11 portend a new paradigm for cities?Urban Affairs Review39 (1):103-127.
22.
Sims, Calvin. 2004. Poll finds most Americans have not prepared for a terror attack. New York Times, October 28, A17.
23.
Slone, Michelle. 2000. Responses to media coverage of terrorism. Journal of Conflict Resolution44 (4):508-522.
24.
U.S. Conference of Mayors. 2004. Tracking federal homeland security funds sent to the 50 state governments. Unpublished report.
