Terrorist fears after 7/7
Robin Goodwin, SSSL, Brunel University
Michelle Willson
Matt McKay
Alex Bailey
Stan Gaines
Terrorism and psychology
• Terror attacks of 9/11, and attacks in Africa,
Russia, UK, 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.
Values and value change
• Work on values largely assumed that values
remain stable during adulthood.
• Such stability reinforced by occupational
class structures that maintain value
consistency across generations (Kohn et al,
1990).
• During periods upheaval in a society it would
seem adaptive for individuals to change some
of their values to fit their circumstances
(Schwartz & Bardi, 1997)
• Security values particularly responsive to
changes in the immediate social context
(Boehnke, 2001). Emphasise safety.
• Raviv et al (2000) found increase in security
values amongst school children following
Rabin assassination
• Frink, Rose, & Canty (2004) reported
significant increases in Security values in the
US following Oklahoma terrorist bombing
• Verkasalo, Goodwin & Bezmenova (2006)
found increase in security following WTC
attacks in New York
• Benevolence concerns welfare of others of
importance to you
• Clinical studies following terrorist incidents
suggest a greater concern for family and
personal safety (e.g., Applewhite & Dickins,
1997)
• Development of relatively strong, ‘benevolent’
ties following terrorist incidents (Vertzberger,
1997).
Values and value change
• Despite an expectation of value change
following a major incident as shock and
stress wear off, the value pendulum ‘‘begins
to swing back’’ (Vertzberger, 1997
• We therefore expect values to turn to preattack levels in subsequent months.
Behaviour and cognitive
concerns
• Several important ‘adaptive’ behavioural
changes may follow an increased terror
threat. When under threat may be increased
contact with families and friends (Bowlby;
TMT).
• In addition, there are likely to be persisting
fears of being a victim, mortality salience (fear
of death) and worries that interfere with daily
life. These however also liable to decrease
over time.
• These changes may however be related to
the individual values of those concerned.
Pre July 2005 and after
• We collected data in September 2003 on
values and other predictors of terrorism fears
and consequent behaviour on 100 employees
of the British Library (BJP, 2005)
• On July 7th 2005 (“7/7”), four suicide bombers
blew themselves up on London Underground
trains, killing 52 people and injuring more
than 700. Two weeks later a similar attack
was attempted but failed due to faulty
explosives.
• We also collected data in the week following
the July 7th bombings (between 7th and 13th
July),and at three, one month periods after
that.
• Respondents approached in the street in
London and Oxford.
Participants
Sep 03 July 05 Aug 05 Sep 05 Oct 05
Male1 49
(%)
Female 51
(%)
Total N 100
1 No
43
58
51
54
57
42
49
46
125
88
103
113
gender differences in samples (x2 (4) = 5.29)
Questionnaire (selected items)
• Values. Schwartz 21 item (ESS) version of the
Schwartz Person Profiles Questionnaire IV. (6point scales (from not at all like me to very
much like me).
• Sex, age, location (London or other)
• Perceived probability of attack
– “How probable do you think a terror attack on
Britain is, on a scale of 0% (not at all) to 100%
(extremely likely)?”
– “How likely is this attack to directly threaten you or
you family, on a scale of 0% (not at all) to 100%
(extremely likely)?”
• 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).
Additional questions in 2005
• Would you say that you have been
thinking about death and your own
mortality more since the threat of
attacks upon Britain? (Yes/No).
• How concerned are you personally
about you personally, or a family
member. Being a victim of a future
terrorist attack in Britain”.
Comparisons with 2003 data:
Generalised fears of attack
80
78
76
74
72
70
68
66
64
Sept 03
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
waves with Michelle's data
F (4, 520) = 4.54, p< .001, 2 .034)
October 2005
General fear of attack
post 7/7 (N =429)
79
78
77
76
75
74
73
July 2005
August 2005
wave of data collection
September 2005
October 2005
Comparisons with 2003 data:
Personal fears
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
Sept 03
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
waves with Michelle's data
F (4, 520) = 4.92, p< .001, 2 .036
October 2005
Personal fear of attack
post 7/7 (N =429)
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
July 2005
August 2005
waves with Michelle's data
September 2005
October 2005
Concerned about being a victim
post 7/7
70
60
50
40
30
July
month of study
August
September
October
Mortality salience post 7/7
80
70
60
Mean mortality salience
50
40
30
20
10
July
month of study
August
September
October
Difficulty in focusing on job
since 7/7
30
Mean concentrate on job
20
10
0
July
month of study
August
September
October
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,
p< .001; 2 = .06.
• When we compare just London residents, change
more marked (F = 9.21, p< .001, 2 = .12).
• Benevolence values show more complex pattern F
(5, 522) = 3.89, p<6 .01, 2 .03), being higher after
the bombings in July and August.
Security values since 2003
4.8
4.6
4.4
4.2
4.0
Sept 03
August 2005
July 2005
waves with Michelle's data
October 2005
September 2005
Benevolence values since 2003
4.9
Mean benevolence = 12 + 18
4.8
4.7
4.6
4.5
4.4
4.3
Sept 03
August 2005
July 2005
waves with Michelle's data
October 2005
September 2005
Increase in family contact
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
July
month of study
August
September
October
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 (rs .15-.22).
Self-enhancement was negatively
correlated with concern about being a victim
or contacting families (r = .12)
Universalism
Self10*
Direction
-22**
Benevolence
Stimulation
18**
- 07
Tradition
Conformity 24**
Hedonism
05
*
-12
Achievement
-07
Security
15**
Power
-25**
Values and fear of being a victim, controlling for total value scores
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
• A number of factors are likely to be important
alongside values in perceiving and
responding to threat and anxieties related to
terrorism