The Dynamics of Group Risk Perception in the US After Paris Attacks

  • Wen-Ting Chung
  • Kai Wei
  • Yu-Ru LinEmail author
  • Xidao Wen
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10046)


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.


Risk 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.


  1. 1.
    Sheridan, L.P.: Islamophobia pre-and post-September 11th, 2001. J. Interpers. Violence 21(3), 317–336 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jenkin, C.M.: Risk perception and terrorism: applying the psychometric paradigm. Homel. Secur. Aff. 2(2) (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lupton, D.: Risk as moral danger: the social and political functions of risk discourse in public health. Sociol. Health Illness 23, 425–435 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chavez, L.: The Latino Threat: Constructing Immigrants, Citizens, and the Nation. Stanford University Press, Stanford (2013)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stephan, W.G., Ybarra, O., Bachman, G.: Prejudice toward immigrants1. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 29(11), 2221–2237 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tichenor, D.J.: Dividing Lines: The Politics of Immigration Control in America. Princeton University Press, Princeton (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gray, K., Young, L., Waytz, A.: Mind perception is the essence of morality. Psychol. Inq. 23(2), 101–124 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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. 9.
    Tajfel, H.: Social identity and intergroup relations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cheong, M., Lee, V.C.S.: A microblogging-based approach to terrorism informatics: exploration and chronicling civilian sentiment and response to terrorism events via Twitter. Inf. Syst. Front. 13(1), 45–59 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Awan, I.: Islamophobia and Twitter: a typology of online hate against Muslims on social media. Policy Internet 6(2), 133–150 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Williams, M.L., Burnap, P.: Cyberhate on social media in the aftermath of woolwich: a case study in computational criminology and big data. Br. J. Criminol. 56(2), 211–238 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Magdy, W., Darwish, K., Abokhodair, N., Quantifying public response towards Islam on Twitter after Paris attacks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1512.04570 (2015)
  14. 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
  15. 15.
    Burnap, P., Williams, M.L.: Us and them: identifying cyber hate on Twitter across multiple protected characteristics. EPJ Data Sci. 5(1), 1 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Huddy, L., Feldman, S., Capelos, T., Provost, C.: The consequences of terrorism: disentangling the effects of personal and national threat. Polit. Psychol. 23(3), 485–509 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kemshall, H.: Risk, social policy and welfare. McGraw-Hill Education, Buckingham (2001)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dasgupta, N.: Implicit ingroup favoritism, outgroup favoritism, and their behavioral manifestations. Soc. Justice Res. 17(2), 143–169 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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
  20. 20.
    Lin, Y.-R., Keegan, B., Margolin, D., Lazer, D.: Rising tides or rising stars?: Dynamics of shared attention on Twitter during media events. PLoS ONE 9(5), e94093 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Graham, J., Haidt, J., Nosek, B.A.: Liberals, conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 96(5), 1029 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. 23.
    Tausczik, Y.R., Pennebaker, J.W.: The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. J. Lang. Soc. Psychol. 29(1), 24–54 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Massey, D.S.: International migration at the dawn of the twenty-first century: the role of the state. Popul. Dev. Rev. 25(2), 303–322 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Massey, S.D., Pren, K.A.: Unintended consequences of US immigration policy: explaining the post-1965 surge from Latin America. Popul. Dev. Rev. 38(1), 1–29 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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
  27. 27.
    Echebarria-Echabe, A., Guede, E.F.: A new measure of Anti-Arab prejudice: reliability and validity evidence. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 37(5), 1077–1091 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Psychology in EducationUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA
  2. 2.School of Social WorkUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA
  3. 3.School of Information SciencesUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations