Do fears of terrorism predict trust in government?

Abstract

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. ABSTRACT Since 9/11, 2001, protection from terrorism has become a poignant issue in the political spectrum, and some have argued that fears of terrorism have been manipulated for political purposes. Contributing to a growing body of research, this study sought to test whether terrorism fears, and/or the impact of terror alerts, predicted overall trust in government in a sample of university undergraduates who completed the Perceptions of TerrorismQuestionnaire Short-Form (PTQ-SF). Two psychological theories offer plausible explanations for this relationship: attachment theory and evolutionary psychology theory. Results indicate that both general terrorism fears and the impact of terror alerts specifically, are statistically significant predictors of trust in government, using separate hierarchical regression models after controlling for other factors. The implications and limitations of this study are discussed, as are directions for further research.

Terror, Terror Everywhere? How Terrorism News Shape Support for Anti‐Muslim Policies as a Function of Perceived Threat Severity and Controllability

“…Fear of terrorism was gauged using five items based on Crowson, DeBacker, and Thoma () (Cronbach’s α = .96, M = 4.09, SD = 1.78). We assessed anger on government with three items adapted from Sinclair and LoCicero () and Skitka, Baumann, and Mullen () (Cronbach’s α = .94, M = 4.99, SD = 1.80). We gauged demand for anti‐Muslim policies with five items based on Saleem and colleagues (, ) and Cohrs, Kielmann, Maes, and Moschner () (Cronbach’s α = .86, M = 4.18, SD = 1.59).…”

Are we all Charlie? How media priming and framing affect immigration policy preferences after terrorist attacks

“…11 The government's monopoly on information from investigations suggests it plays an important role in the frame's diagnosis of events, and the rally effect may make it easier for political leaders to frame terrorist attacks successfully. The rally effect, characterized by increased support for political leadership, occurs when political leaders (especially presidents and prime ministers) become symbols of the national community and when anxious people look to leaders for reassurance (Chanley 2002;Landau et al 2004;Sinclair and LoCicero 2010). 12 Indeed, while the rally effect originally was thought to occur only after international events, domestic terrorist attacks without international connections also seem to create rallies (Stapley 2012;).…”

Party leaders and voter responses to political terrorism

“…Terrorism-commonly defined as "the premeditated use, or threat to use, violence by individuals or subnationals to obtain political or social objectives through the intimidation of a large audience beyond that of the immediate victims" (Enders and Sanders 2012, p. 4)can have important socio-economic consequences, as well as affecting micro-level attitudes and public opinion (Berrebi and Klor 2008;Finseraas and Listhaug 2013;Merolla and Zechmeister 2013;Getmansky and Zeitzoff 2014;Peffley et al 2015;Hirsch-Hoefler et al 2016). Key findings in the rapidly expanding academic literature show that terrorist events tend to strengthen support for right-wing parties (Kibris 2011;Berrebi and Klor 2008;Getmansky and Zeitzoff 2014), heighten public concerns over future similar events (Bozzoli and Mueller 2011;Finseraas and Listhaug 2013;Hirsch-Hoefler et al 2016;Geys and Qari 2017), increase anti-immigrant sentiments and factional 'radicalization' (Echebarria-Echabe and Fernandez-Guede 2006; Sinclair and LoCicero 2010;Finseraas et al 2011;Gould and Klor 2016;Hirsch-Hoefler et al 2016) and boost philanthropic behavior (Berrebi and Yonah 2016). Evidence that such events trigger more widespread support for stricter security and defense policies remains mixed (Finseraas and Listhaug 2013;Economou and Kollias 2019), while terrorism's influence on institutional and social trust appears at best shortlived (Arvanitidis et al 2016;Geys and Qari 2017).…”