Perceptions of Terrorism and Counterterrorism: Fear, Risk and the 2016 Trump Effect

IF 0.7 4区 管理学 Q4 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management Pub Date : 2019-11-25 DOI:10.1515/jhsem-2018-0023
Michael Brogan, F. L. Rusciano, Victor R. Thompson, Kayla Walden
{"title":"Perceptions of Terrorism and Counterterrorism: Fear, Risk and the 2016 Trump Effect","authors":"Michael Brogan, F. L. Rusciano, Victor R. Thompson, Kayla Walden","doi":"10.1515/jhsem-2018-0023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Our study examines respondents’ perceptions of terrorism and counterterrorism in the USA during the 2016 presidential campaign. It does so by conducting an experiment where a group of respondents were randomly assigned to a vivid example of a terrorist attack and another group did not receive this treatment. The study’s results find opposing individual perceptions of the job government is doing to protect the country from terrorism and on differences among respondents as to the root causes of terrorism. Our research points to one explanation of this difference: Americans feel there is little they can do about terrorism and though the government is working to protect the nation, the public feels the government cannot stop, only prevent, terrorist acts from occurring. This causes the public to shift their perceptions of terrorism away from questions of efficient public policy responses to one of values. The experiment suggests heightened levels of fear among 2016 Trump voters who received the treatment compared to both Republican voters and Clinton supporters, though control and treatment groups also showed variation. Finally, this work highlights a major challenge for counter-terrorism policymakers in dealing with a highly polarized public. Recent electoral campaigns have demonstrated that politicians are actively trying to politicize terrorism. This work provides evidence that these efforts are resonating among the public. The danger of politicizing terrorism is that it blocks efforts to find common ground, between polarized groups in society in keeping the nation safe.","PeriodicalId":46847,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management","volume":"44 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jhsem-2018-0023","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Abstract Our study examines respondents’ perceptions of terrorism and counterterrorism in the USA during the 2016 presidential campaign. It does so by conducting an experiment where a group of respondents were randomly assigned to a vivid example of a terrorist attack and another group did not receive this treatment. The study’s results find opposing individual perceptions of the job government is doing to protect the country from terrorism and on differences among respondents as to the root causes of terrorism. Our research points to one explanation of this difference: Americans feel there is little they can do about terrorism and though the government is working to protect the nation, the public feels the government cannot stop, only prevent, terrorist acts from occurring. This causes the public to shift their perceptions of terrorism away from questions of efficient public policy responses to one of values. The experiment suggests heightened levels of fear among 2016 Trump voters who received the treatment compared to both Republican voters and Clinton supporters, though control and treatment groups also showed variation. Finally, this work highlights a major challenge for counter-terrorism policymakers in dealing with a highly polarized public. Recent electoral campaigns have demonstrated that politicians are actively trying to politicize terrorism. This work provides evidence that these efforts are resonating among the public. The danger of politicizing terrorism is that it blocks efforts to find common ground, between polarized groups in society in keeping the nation safe.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对恐怖主义和反恐的看法:恐惧、风险和2016年特朗普效应
我们的研究考察了受访者在2016年总统竞选期间对美国恐怖主义和反恐的看法。它通过进行一项实验来做到这一点,在实验中,一组受访者被随机分配到一个恐怖袭击的生动例子中,另一组没有接受这种治疗。研究结果显示,对于政府在保护国家免受恐怖主义侵害方面所做的工作,个人的看法截然不同,受访者对恐怖主义根源的看法也存在差异。我们的研究指出了这种差异的一种解释:美国人觉得他们对恐怖主义无能为力,尽管政府正在努力保护国家,但公众觉得政府不能阻止,只能防止恐怖主义行为的发生。这导致公众将他们对恐怖主义的看法从有效的公共政策反应问题转变为价值观问题。实验表明,与共和党选民和克林顿支持者相比,2016年接受治疗的特朗普选民的恐惧程度更高,尽管对照组和治疗组也表现出差异。最后,这项工作突出了反恐政策制定者在应对高度两极分化的公众时面临的一项重大挑战。最近的竞选活动表明,政客们正积极地试图将恐怖主义政治化。这项工作证明,这些努力在公众中引起了共鸣。将恐怖主义政治化的危险在于,它阻碍了社会两极分化群体之间为维护国家安全而寻求共同点的努力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.80
自引率
12.50%
发文量
11
期刊介绍: The Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management publishes original, innovative, and timely articles describing research or practice in the fields of homeland security and emergency management. JHSEM publishes not only peer-reviewed articles, but also news and communiqués from researchers and practitioners, and book/media reviews. Content comes from a broad array of authors representing many professions, including emergency management, engineering, political science and policy, decision science, and health and medicine, as well as from emergency management and homeland security practitioners.
期刊最新文献
Group Identity, Self-Concept, and Gender Bias: A Regression Analysis of Female Student Experiences Within Emergency Management-Related Higher Education Programs A National Disaster Medicine Quality Management Tool in an International Context – A Theoretical Study Cross-Border and Transboundary Resilience Between Here and There. The Role of Social Entrepreneurship in Restoring the Supply Chain of Face Masks During the COVID-19 Crisis Standardization Gaps in European Disaster Management
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1