Mind & Society

, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp 285–295 | Cite as

Behavioral and emotional responses to escalating terrorism threat

Article

Abstract

We conducted an online study of projected behavioral and emotional responses to escalating terrorist threat. The study employed scenarios in which terrorists targeted commercial airliners with missiles at an international airport. An important feature of attacks on commercial flights is that unlike many other terrorist threats, exposure to the risk can be controlled simply be refusing to fly. Nine scenarios were constructed by crossing two between-subjects factors, each with three levels: (1) planned government protective actions and (2) social norm, expressed as variation in airline ticket sales. Scenarios also incorporated descriptions of three increasingly severe attacks; this was a within-subjects factor. After each description, we asked respondents to imagine they had planned a vacation to a destination 2,500 km away, and we examined their projected fear and behavior. Fear increased and more trips were canceled as the attacks escalated. Government protective actions and social norm had little impact on either fear or planned flying.

Keywords

Fear Emotion Projected behavior Scenario Terrorism Threat 

References

  1. Anderson NH (1981) Foundations of information integration theory. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Baumert T, Weiss DJ, Buesa M, Valino A, John R, Rosoff H, Hovsepian M (2009, August) Terrorists scare us, but will they interfere with our plans? In: Paper presented at the bi-annual conference on subjective probability, utility, and decision making, Rovereto, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  3. Bergstrom RL, McCaul KD (2004) Perceived risk and worry: the effects of 9/11 on willingness to fly. J Appl Soc Psychol 34:1846–1856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Birnbaum MH (1999) How to show that 9 > 221: collect judgments in a between-subjects design. Psychol Methods 4:243–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burns WJ, Slovic P (2007) The diffusion of fear: modeling community response to a terrorist strike. J Def Model Simul 4:1–20Google Scholar
  6. Burns WJ, Slovic P, Kasperson RE, Kasperson JX, Renn O, Emani S (1993) Incorporating structural models into research on the social amplification of risk: implications for theory construction and decision making. Risk Anal 13:611–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cannon WB (1932) The wisdom of the body. Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. de Kort YAW, McCalley LT, Midden CJH (2008) Persuasive trash cans: activation of littering norms by design. Environ Behav 40:870–891CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dillon RL, Tinsley CH (2008) How near-misses influence decision making under risk: a missed opportunity for learning. Manag Sci 54:1425–1440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eisenman DP, Wold C, Fielding J, Long A, Setodji C, Hickey S, Gelberg L (2006) Differences in individual-level terrorism preparedness in Los Angeles County. Am J Prev Med 30:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fischhoff B, Bruine de Bruin W, Perrin W, Downs J (2004) Travel risks in a time of terror: judgments and choices. Risk Anal 24:1301–1309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gigerenzer G (2004) Dread risk, September 11, and fatal traffic accidents. Psychol Sci 15:286–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gigerenzer G (2006) Out of the frying pan into the fire: behavioral reactions to terrorist attacks. Risk Anal 26:347–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gordon P, Moore JE, Park JY II, Richardson HW (2007) The economic impacts of a terrorist attack on the U.S. commercial aviation system. Risk Anal 27:505–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Göritz AS (2014) Determinants of the starting rate and the completion rate in online panels. In: Callegaro M, Baker R, Bethlehem J, Göritz AS, Krosnick JA, Lavrakas PJ (eds) Online panel research: a data quality perspective. Wiley, Chichester, pp 154–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gray C, Russell P, Blockley S (1991) The effects upon helping behaviour of wearing pro-gay identification. Br J Soc Psychol 30:171–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Grice GR (1966) Dependence of empirical laws upon the source of experimental variation. Psychol Bull 66:488–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hall JM (2005) Responses of adults in the Southeast to events of September 11: six months later. Issues Ment Health Nurs 26:415–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hsee CK (1996) The evaluability hypothesis: an explanation for preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of alternatives. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 67:247–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hyams K, Murphy F, Wessely S (2002) Combating terrorism: recommendations for dealing with the long term health consequences of a chemical, biological or nuclear attack. J Health Polit Policy 27:273–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kasperson RE, Renn O, Slovic P, Brown H, Emel J, Goble R, Kasperson J (1988) The social amplification of risk: a conceptual framework. Risk Anal 8:177–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lerner JS, Gonzalez RM, Small DA, Fischhoff B (2003) Effects of fear and anger on perceived risks of terrorism. A national field experiment. Psychol Sci 14:144–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Levitt SB, List JA (2007) Viewpoint: on the generalizability of lab behaviour to the field. Can J Econ 40:347–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Loewenstein G (2005) Hot-cold empathy gaps and medical decision making. Health Psychol 24:49–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lopez-Rousseau A (2005) Avoiding the death risk of avoiding a dread risk. Psychol Sci 16:426–428Google Scholar
  26. Louviere JJ (1988) Conjoint analysis modeling of stated preferences: a review of theory, methods, recent developments and external validity. J Transport Econ Policy 22:93–119Google Scholar
  27. Marshall RD, Bryant RA, Amsel L, Suh EJ, Cook JM, Neria Y (2007) The psychology of ongoing threat: relative risk appraisal, the September 11 attacks, and terrorism-related fears. Am Psychol 64:302–316Google Scholar
  28. Okpara U, Bier VM (2008) Securing passenger aircraft from the threat of Man-Portable-Air Defense Systems (MANPADS). Risk Anal 28:1583–1599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Parducci A (1995) Happiness, pleasure, and judgment: the contextual theory and its applications. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, MahwahGoogle Scholar
  30. Post JM (2007) The mind of the terrorist. Palgrave Macmillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Powell L, Self W (2004) Personalized fear, personalized control, and reactions to the September 11 attacks. N Am J Psychol 6:55–70Google Scholar
  32. Rottenstreich Y, Hsee C (2001) Money, kisses, and electric shocks: on the affective psychology of risk. Psychol Sci 12:185–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schuster MA, Stein BD, Jaycox LH, Collins RL, Marshall GN, Elliott MN, Zhou AJ (2001) A national survey of stress reactions after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. N Engl J Med 345:1507–1512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shahrabani S, Benzion U, Shavit T (2009) Recalled emotions and risk judgments: field study of the 2006 Israel–Lebanon War. Judgm Decis Mak 4:326–336Google Scholar
  35. Sjöberg L (2003) The different dynamics of personal and general risk. Risk Manag Int J 5:19–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Slovic P (1987) Perception of risk. Science 236:280–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sunstein CR, Zeckhauser R (2010) Dreadful possibilities, neglected probabilities. In: Michal-Kerjan E, Slovic P (eds) The irrational economist: making decisions in a dangerous world. Public Affairs Press, New York, pp 116–123Google Scholar
  38. Weiss DJ (2006) Analysis of variance and functional measurement: a practical guide. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  39. Weiss DJ (2009) Nominal analysis of “variance”. Behav Res Methods 41:901–908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Weiss DJ (2012) The use of factorial forecasting to predict public response. Psicológica 33:695–710Google Scholar
  41. West DM, Orr M (2005) Managing citizen fears: public attitudes toward urban terrorism. Urban Aff Rev 41:93–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zeidner M (2006) Individual differences in psychological reactions to terror attack. Pers Individ Dif 40:771–781CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of FreiburgFreiburgGermany
  2. 2.California State University, Los AngelesFullertonUSA

Personalised recommendations