The Dynamics of Group Risk Perception in the US After Paris Attacks
This paper examines how the public perceived immigrant groups as potential risk, and how such risk perception changed after the attacks that took place in Paris on November 13, 2015. The study utilizes the Twitter conversations associated with different political leanings in the U.S., and mixed methods approach that integrated both quantitative and qualitative analyses. Risk perception profiles of Muslim, Islam, Latino, and immigrant were quantitatively constructed, based on how these groups/issues were morally judged as risk. Discourse analysis on how risk narratives constructed before and after the event was conducted. The study reveals that the groups/issues differed by how they were perceived as a risk or at risk across political leanings, and how the risk perception was related to in- and out-group biases. The study has important implication on how different communities conceptualize, perceive, and respond to danger, especially in the context of terrorism.
KeywordsRisk perception Terrorist attacks Risk analysis Immigrants Group identity In- and out-group bias Social media Mixed methods
This work is part of the research supported from NSF #1423697, #1634944 and the CRDF at the University of Pittsburgh. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material do not necessarily reflect the views of the funding sources.
- 2.Jenkin, C.M.: Risk perception and terrorism: applying the psychometric paradigm. Homel. Secur. Aff. 2(2) (2006)Google Scholar
- 4.Chavez, L.: The Latino Threat: Constructing Immigrants, Citizens, and the Nation. Stanford University Press, Stanford (2013)Google Scholar
- 6.Tichenor, D.J.: Dividing Lines: The Politics of Immigration Control in America. Princeton University Press, Princeton (2009)Google Scholar
- 8.Graham, J., Haidt, J., Koleva, S., Motyl, M., Iyer, R., Wojcik, S.P., Ditto, P.H.: Moral foundations theory: the pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. In: Devine, P., Plant, A. (eds.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 47, pp. 55–130 (2012)Google Scholar
- 9.Tajfel, H.: Social identity and intergroup relations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2010)Google Scholar
- 13.Magdy, W., Darwish, K., Abokhodair, N., Quantifying public response towards Islam on Twitter after Paris attacks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1512.04570 (2015)
- 14.Puschmann, C., Ausserhofer, J., Maan, N., Hametner, M.: Information laundering, counter-publics: the news sources of islamophobic groups on Twitter. In: Tenth International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (2016)Google Scholar
- 17.Kemshall, H.: Risk, social policy and welfare. McGraw-Hill Education, Buckingham (2001)Google Scholar
- 19.Lin, Y.-R., Margolin, D., Keegan, B., Lazer, D., Voices of victory: a computational focus group framework for tracking opinion shift in real time. In: Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on World Wide Web, pp. 737–748. International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee (2013)Google Scholar
- 22.Pennebaker, J.W., Francis, M.E., Booth, R.J.: Linguistic Inquiry, Word Count: LIWC 2001, vol. 71. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (2001)Google Scholar
- 26.Hayworth, J.D., Eule, J.: Whatever It Takes: Illegal Immigration, Border Security, and the War on Terror. Regnery Publishing, Washington, D.C. (2005)Google Scholar