Terrorism and psychology

1
Terrorism and psychology

• Terror attacks of 9/11, and attacks in Africa,
  Russia, Spain and the Middle East, have alerted
  us to apparent new threats posed by terrorism
• Psychological research fairly new.
• However, a number of psychological theories
  available pertinent to this topic.
• Include theories of risk (e.g. Slovic), Terror
  Management Theory (e.g. Greenberg), several
  theories of group influence.

2
(No Transcript)
3
(No Transcript)
4
Predicting terror perceptions

• Understandably, much work has been on
  psychologically profiling terrorists. Of little
  use?
• Perceptions of terror threat likely to be
  important. Implications for
• Travel (e.g. public transport use, air travel)
• Psychological well-being (e.g. coping)
• Economic investment (job movement, housing)

5
In this talk

• Focus on two sets of studies investigating some
  predictors and consequences of fears of terrorism
• 1. Work conducted in 2003 (British Journal of
  Psychology, study 2, November 2005).
• 2. Recent work since 7/7 bombings in London four
  waves of data since July.

6
Predicting threat perception May 2003

• Several factors influence how scared someone will
  be.
• These can operate at individual level e.g. values
  and personality of the individual, locus of
  control, prior exposure to terrorist
  events/threats etc.
• Group level factors include perceptions of others
  around, and demographic variables such as age,
  sex and location
• (Cultural factors, such as ethnicity)

7
Predicting threat perception individual level

• Values. Schwartz ten, individual-level value
  types which satisfy biological needs,
  interactional requirements and institutional and
  social demands for group welfare and survival.
• Values are organized in a circumplex format

8
Self-Transcendence
Universalism
Openness to change
Self-Direction
Benevolence
Stimulation
Tradition
Conformity
Hedonism
Conservation
Security
Achievement
Power
Self-Enhancement
9

• Security values emphasise safety. Expected to
  correlate with fear of an attack
• Stimulation values emphasize daring, varied life.
  Expected to correlate with risky behaviours and
  negative correlation with threat perception.
• Benevolence values concern the preservation of
  the welfare of intimate others. Predict
  significant correlation between Benevolence
  values and threat perception, particularly the
  personal sense of family/ friend threat

10
Predicting threat perception group factors

• Seven decades of research has shown significance
  of normative influences (e.g. Sherif, 1936)
• Hatfield Rapson (2004) emotional contagion
  people catch others emotions.
• Theory of Planned Action (Ajzen, 1991) group
  norms important in forming an intention to
  respond.
• Hypothesise positive correlation between
  individuals and families/ friends perception of
  threat

11
Location, location, location..

• Dissonance those who live/ study in high risk
  areas will find themselves in a dissonant state
  where their desire for safety may clash with
  their potential high risk habitat (Jonas,
  Greenberg Frey, 2003). So should portray only
  moderate risk estimates.
• Predict risk perception greatest amongst those in
  suburbs, lowest in those in another city
  (Oxford).

12
London Underground map with approx. zones
13
Demographics

• Age. Thomas (2003) reports relatively high rates
  of anxiety amongst his middle-aged sample
  following the September 11th attacks compared to
  other samples. We suggest that older respondents
  will exhibit greater anxiety.
• Sex. Girls and women have been shown to report
  greater threat following traumatic events than
  boys or men (Norris, Friedman, Watson, Bryne,
  Diaz Kaniasty, 2002).

14
Managing Terror coping with the terror threats

• How does threat perception influence behaviour
  change?
• Several outcomes possible we focus on
• 1. Changes in behaviours (public transport, avoid
  risky places, change daily routines, reduction
  in air travel)
• 2. Relationship interactions. Important coping
  mechanism is seeking support from others (Bowlby,
  1969). TMT (Greenberg et al, 1997).
• Increased risk ? behaviour changes and increased
  contacts with intimate others

15
Participants (May 2003)
16
Method

• Questionnaires distributed in cafés, libraries
  etc at major universities in London and Oxford.
• Anonymous, but researcher present if questions.

17
Questionnaire predicting threat perception

• Values. Schwartz 21 item (ESS) version of the
  Schwartz Person Profiles Questionnaire IV.
  (6-point scales (from not at all like me to very
  much like me).
• Sex, age, location.
• Perceived threat. General probability of attack
  and Perceived threat to your family (percentage
  scale).

18
Questionnaire Consequences of threat perception

• Since the recent threat of terrorist attack on
  Britain have you
• been using public transport to get into central
  London more often (less often, about the same) as
  before?
• Cancelled or delayed any specific plans to travel
  by air since the threat of attacks ?
• been avoiding certain areas of London due to fear
  of terrorist attack? (yes or no)
• made changes to your daily routine in general due
  to the threat of a terror attack? (yes or no).

19
Relationship changes

• Have you adapted your schedule to spend more time
  with your family (friends) since the threat of
  terrorist attacks? (yes, no or unsure)
• Have you contacted family/ friends more since the
  threat of terrorist attacks? (yes or no),
• Are you in a romantic relationship? (yes or no)
  then, if yes,
• Has the relationship become closer / more distant
  since the threat of terrorist attacks? (5 point
  scale).

20
Final structural model
.24
21
Brief findings

• Age, location, sex and the values of Openness to
  Change all predicted perceived generalised
  probability of an attack,
• Openness to Change and Hedonism plus sex
  predicted personal threat.
• Older respondents, women, and those living in the
  suburbs were most likely to perceive a general
  threat of attack.

22
Getting scared Location effects
(F (2, 227) 5.38, plt .01)
23

• Men, and those higher on Openness but lower on
  Hedonism, were less likely to see themselves or
  their family at personal risk from an attack.
• A general perceived probability of attack was
  positively correlated with adaptive behaviour,
  whilst personal threat was correlated with
  adaptive behaviour and increased relationship
  contact.

24
Part 2 After the London bombings

• The first studies conducted in 2003
• However, on 7/7 London suffered suicide attacks,
  leading to 52 deaths
• How would individuals perceptions of threat
  change as a result of the bombings?
• How might this alter month by month?
• What other important values might be expected to
  change?
• How would individuals cope with the attacks?
• How would our earlier model hold up in the light
  of these bombings?

25
Changes since 2003

• As part of our earlier studies (BJP, 2005, study
  1) we also collected a sample from the British
  Library, Central London (N 100) (September
  2003)
• We used a similar questionnaire to conduct
  on-the-street face-to-face questionnaires in the
  week following the July bombings (9th-14th July)
  and at the same time each month (August,
  September and October 2005).

26
Participants

• September 2003 100 (87 from London)
• July 2005 124 (65)
• August 2005 88 (65)
• September 2005 102 (80)
• October 2005 113 (74)

27
Measures

• Risk of future attack (general, and personal
  risk)
• Values measure (as before, but in 2003 sample
  just values of security and benevolence)
• Concern about being a victim (2005 data)
• Control over being a victim (2005 data)
• Mortality salience (thinking about death)(2005)
• Difficulty to concentrate on job
• Family/ friend contact
• Family/ friends perception of risk of attack
  (2005)
• Coping mechanisms (BRIEF Cope scale 13 styles)

28
Comparisons with 2003 data Generalised fears
F (4, 520) 4.54, plt .001, ?2 .034)
29
General fear of attack post 7/7 (N 429)
30
Comparisons with 2003 data Personal fears
F (4, 520) 4.92, plt .001, ?2 .036
31
Personal fear of attack post 7/7 (N 429)
32
Concerned about being a victim post 7/7
33
Mortality salience post 7/7
34
Difficulty in focusing on job since 7/7
35
Changes in values

• Controlling for age and sex, clearest change in
  values is in security values, which leapt from a
  M of 4.05 to 4.65 between the September 03 and
  July 05 samples, and stable about this figure
  since (F 8.32, plt .001 ?2 .06.
• When we compare just London residents, change
  more marked (F 9.21, plt .001, ?2 .12).
• Benevolence values show more complex pattern F
  (5, 522) 3.89, plt6 .01, ?2 .03), being higher
  after the bombings in July and August.

36
Security values since 2003
37
Benevolence values since 2003

38
Changing routines

• Londoners much more likely to report they avoided
  certain areas of the city immediately after July
  2005
• This avoidance declined gradually over time
• However very few people at any stage of the
  study actually reported they had changed their
  daily routine to avoid the terror threat (5
  overall)
• 28 of respondents believed they had a great
  deal (4) or a little (24) control over being
  a victim.

39
Behaviour change Public transport all data
40
Percent Londoners avoid areas
41
Increase in family contact
42
Normative influences

• Correlation between own perception of likelihood
  of being a victim and familys perceptions of
  risk .24 (plt .001)
• Correlation between own perception of likelihood
  of being a victim and friends perceptions of
  risk .14 (plt .005)

43
Coping mechanisms

• Both before the attacks and after, most popular
  was accepting that it happened (I have been
  accepting that this has happened / I have been
  learning to live with it).
• Least common responses were self-blame or turning
  to alcohol/ drugs to deal with it.
• Just after the bombings in July, people were more
  likely to try to distract themselves or deny the
  events, were more likely to vent their anger
  (expressing negative feelings) or turn to
  religion, than in later months.

44
Values and fear perception

• People with values that emphasised security,
  caring for others, and traditional views were
  more likely to be worried about being a victim of
  the attacks, have difficulty focusing on work,
  and were more likely to increase contact with
  families.
• Self-enhancement was negatively correlated with
  concern about being a victim or contacting
  families.

45
Self-Transcendence
Universalism 10
Openness to change
Self-Direction -22
Benevolence 18
Stimulation - 07
Tradition 24
Conformity 05
Hedonism -12
Conservation
Security 15
Achievement -07
Power -25
Self-Enhancement
Values and fear of being a victim, controlling
for total value scores
46
Final structural model
47
Conclusions

• Increasing prominence of terrorism threat means
  this likely to be a topic of concern for a wide
  range of social scientists
• Our work is still at an early stage analysis of
  4 wave data in progress

48
In our studies

• Demographic variables (sex, age, location),
  shared normative perceptions and individual
  values were significant predictors of two related
  (but not identical) forms of terror perception a
  generalised perception of the probability of
  attack and a more localised assessment of
  personal risk or risk to immediate family.
• These terror perceptions were predictors of
  relevant behavioural change and an increased
  closeness with significant others.

49

• Our most recent data suggests interesting changes
  in perceptions of risk and core values such
  longitudinal analyses are rare but may provide
  important insights into the processes involved in
  risk perception
• Future work should look at a variety of groups,
  working across cultures and ethnic groups and
  examining a range of behavioural responses to
  terrorism threat.

50

• Copies of this talk can be downloaded from
• www.culturefirst.com