IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v39y2019i3p553-570.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Terrorism Risk Assessment, Recollection Bias, and Public Support for Counterterrorism Policy and Spending

Author

Listed:
  • Xinsheng Liu
  • Kent E. Portney
  • Jeryl L. Mumpower
  • Arnold Vedlitz

Abstract

Recollection bias (RB) refers to the phenomenon whereby after an adverse event people report that their risk assessment about a similar future event is presently no higher than their recollection of their pre‐event risk assessment. While previous research has outlined this theoretical construct and generated important empirical findings, there were some limitations. We design and employ a new national representative survey to address these limitations in this study. We examine the existence and persistence of RB among the general public in the context of a number of domestic and international terrorist attacks. We further examine the socioeconomic and political base of RB and the influences of RB on a wide range of citizens’ counterterrorism policy preferences. Our data analyses reveal strong evidence showing the occurrence of RB and its persistence across various forms of terrorism risk. With regard to the socioeconomic and political base, we find that females, older people, political conservatives, and Republicans are less likely to be subject to RB. For the effects of RB on public counterterrorism policy preferences, our analyses demonstrate that this bias significantly dampens public support for a wide range of preventive policy measures and government anti‐terrorism spending. Overall, our study, based on a national representative sample and an extended survey design, provides robust evidence of RB in terrorism risk assessment, and adds further evidence to support the idea that RB is likely a generalizable phenomenon. Implications and suggestions for future research are discussed in the conclusion.

Suggested Citation

  • Xinsheng Liu & Kent E. Portney & Jeryl L. Mumpower & Arnold Vedlitz, 2019. "Terrorism Risk Assessment, Recollection Bias, and Public Support for Counterterrorism Policy and Spending," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(3), pages 553-570, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:39:y:2019:i:3:p:553-570
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.13203
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13203
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.13203?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Darren W. Davis & Brian D. Silver, 2004. "Civil Liberties vs. Security: Public Opinion in the Context of the Terrorist Attacks on America," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 48(1), pages 28-46, January.
    2. W. Kip Viscusi & Richard J. Zeckhauser, 2017. "Recollection Bias and Its Underpinnings: Lessons from Terrorism Risk Assessments," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(5), pages 969-981, May.
    3. Jeryl L. Mumpower & Liu Shi & James W. Stoutenborough & Arnold Vedlitz, 2013. "Psychometric and Demographic Predictors of the Perceived Risk of Terrorist Threats and the Willingness to Pay for Terrorism Risk Management Programs," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(10), pages 1802-1811, October.
    4. Ted Brader & Nicholas A. Valentino & Elizabeth Suhay, 2008. "What Triggers Public Opposition to Immigration? Anxiety, Group Cues, and Immigration Threat," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 52(4), pages 959-978, October.
    5. Paul Slovic & Melissa L. Finucane & Ellen Peters & Donald G. MacGregor, 2004. "Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 311-322, April.
    6. Leonie Huddy & Stanley Feldman & Charles Taber & Gallya Lahav, 2005. "Threat, Anxiety, and Support of Antiterrorism Policies," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 49(3), pages 593-608, July.
    7. Connor Huff & Joshua D. Kertzer, 2018. "How the Public Defines Terrorism," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 62(1), pages 55-71, January.
    8. Quan Li & Matthew Fuhrmann & Bryan R. Early & Arnold Vedlitz, 2012. "Preferences, Knowledge, and Citizen Probability Assessments of the Terrorism Risk of Nuclear Power," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 29(2), pages 207-227, March.
    9. Fischhoff, Baruch & Gonzalez, Roxana M. & Small, Deborah A. & Lerner, Jennifer S., 2003. "Judged Terror Risk and Proximity to the World Trade Center," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 26(2-3), pages 137-151, March-May.
    10. W. Kip Viscusi & Richard J. Zeckhauser, 2005. "Recollection Bias and the Combat of Terrorism," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 34(1), pages 27-55, January.
    11. Melvin Hinich & Xinsheng Liu & Arnold Vedlitz & Charles Lindsey, 2013. "Beyond the left–right cleavage: Exploring American political choice space," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 25(1), pages 75-104, January.
    12. White, Halbert, 1980. "A Heteroskedasticity-Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimator and a Direct Test for Heteroskedasticity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 48(4), pages 817-838, May.
    13. Marc Hetherington & Elizabeth Suhay, 2011. "Authoritarianism, Threat, and Americans’ Support for the War on Terror," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(3), pages 546-560, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Scott Radnitz, 2022. "Perceived threats and the trade-off between security and human rights," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 59(3), pages 367-381, May.
    2. Shelly C. McArdle & Heather Rosoff & Richard S. John, 2012. "The Dynamics of Evolving Beliefs, Concerns Emotions, and Behavioral Avoidance Following 9/11: A Longitudinal Analysis of Representative Archival Samples," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(4), pages 744-761, April.
    3. W. Kip Viscusi & Richard J. Zeckhauser, 2017. "Recollection Bias and Its Underpinnings: Lessons from Terrorism Risk Assessments," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(5), pages 969-981, May.
    4. Kenneth D. Nguyen & Heather Rosoff & Richard S. John, 2017. "Valuing Equal Protection in Aviation Security Screening," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(12), pages 2405-2419, December.
    5. Deole, Sumit S. & Huang, Yue, 2020. "Suffering and prejudice: Do negative emotions predict immigration concerns?," GLO Discussion Paper Series 644, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    6. Daniele Guariso, 2018. "Terrorist Attacks and Immigration Rhetoric: A Natural Experiment on British MPs," Working Paper Series 1218, Department of Economics, University of Sussex Business School.
    7. Tiberiu Dragu, 2017. "On repression and its effectiveness," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 29(4), pages 599-622, October.
    8. Marion de Vries & Liesbeth Claassen & Marcel Mennen & Aura Timen & Margreet J. M. te Wierik & Danielle R. M. Timmermans, 2019. "Public Perceptions of Contentious Risk: The Case of Rubber Granulate in the Netherlands," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(12), pages 1-16, June.
    9. Cengiz Erisen & Cigdem Kentmen-Cin, 2017. "Tolerance and perceived threat toward Muslim immigrants in Germany and the Netherlands," European Union Politics, , vol. 18(1), pages 73-97, March.
    10. Konstantinos Drakos & Catherine Mueller, 2014. "On the Determinants of Terrorism Risk Concern in Europe," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(3), pages 291-310, June.
    11. Kevin Keenan, 2018. "Rethinking place in the study of societal responses to terrorism: Insights from Boston, Massachusetts (USA)," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 55(2), pages 461-480, February.
    12. Heather Rosoff & Richard S. John & Fynnwin Prager, 2012. "Flu, Risks, and Videotape: Escalating Fear and Avoidance," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(4), pages 729-743, April.
    13. Skarbek, David, 2011. "Governance and Prison Gangs," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 105(4), pages 702-716, November.
    14. Shoshana Shiloh & Gülbanu Güvenç & Dilek Önkal, 2007. "Cognitive and Emotional Representations of Terror Attacks: A Cross‐Cultural Exploration," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(2), pages 397-409, April.
    15. Alexandra Filindra & Loren Collingwood & Noah J. Kaplan, 2020. "Anxious About Social Violence: The Emotional Underpinnings of Support for Gun Control," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 101(5), pages 2101-2120, September.
    16. Michael Siegrist & Joseph Árvai, 2020. "Risk Perception: Reflections on 40 Years of Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2191-2206, November.
    17. Steven V. Miller, 2017. "Individual-level expectations of executive authority under territorial threat," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 34(5), pages 526-545, September.
    18. Enrico Rubaltelli & Giulia Priolo & Sara Scrimin & Ughetta Moscardino, 2020. "Media Exposure to Terrorism and Perception of Immigrants as a Threat: The Role of Emotional Intelligence and Psychophysiological Self‐Regulation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(8), pages 1666-1676, August.
    19. Bozzoli, Carlos & Müller, Cathérine, 2011. "Perceptions and attitudes following a terrorist shock: Evidence from the UK," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 27(S1), pages 89-106.
    20. Sofia Vasilopoulou & Markus Wagner, 2017. "Fear, anger and enthusiasm about the European Union: Effects of emotional reactions on public preferences towards European integration," European Union Politics, , vol. 18(3), pages 382-405, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:39:y:2019:i:3:p:553-570. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.