Confrontational and Preventative Policy Responses to Terrorism: Anger Wants a Fight and Fear Wants "Them" to Go Away

Abstract

This study used a nationally representative sample (N = 550) to test factors that predicted support for a confrontational (an expanded War on Terror) and a defensive public policy (deporting various groups symbolically associated with the attackers) shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Results indicate that anger but not fear predicted support for expanding the war beyond Afghanistan, and fear but not anger predicted support for deporting Arab Americans, Muslims, and first generation immigrants. Political orientation was weakly or not correlated with affective reactions and policy preferences, but right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) was a strong predictor of both. RWA had a direct and an indirect effect through anger on support for war and a direct and an indirect effect through fear on support for deportation. Implications are discussed.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 243 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.