After a terrorist attack the public is often advised to be vigilant. However, new research by School of Politics and Economics Associate Professor Jennifer Merolla shows that people need to be vigilant about the threats terrorism poses to democracy as well. This research, which Merolla conducted with Vanderbilt University Professor Elizabeth Zechmeister, was inspired by a study the pair had done in 2004 on the effect of leadership qualities, such as charisma, on voting patterns. Results indicated that threats of terrorism increased the perception of charisma in an incumbent leader. With their curiosity piqued, Merolla and Zechmeister began devising more experiments to learn what other effects terrorism might have on the public. This led to the years-long project in which the researchers studied existing survey data and conducted six different experiments with participants in Mexico and the United States. All of the studies involved two groups of participants; one was shown newspaper articles detailing terrorist threats and the country’s vulnerabilities while the other was given feel-good articles describing positive developments in the country. Afterward, the groups were given surveys on their opinions of various issues and leaders. The results paint a troubling picture. “Our findings shed new light on the depth of the public’s response to 9/11 and related terrorist threats, not only in the US, but also in Mexico,” said Merolla. “In a time when the threat of terrorism faces countries around the globe, the results are disturbing because they confirm the potential for the public to become more distrustful of others, more willing to sacrifice their rights, and more willing to pin their hopes on a strong leader who may then alter democratic institutions.” Specifically, the research findings showed that terrorist threats cause the public to elevate their perceptions of Republican incumbent candidates as stronger and more charismatic. Additionally, in times of terror, the public bases voting decisions more on leadership evaluations than they do in non-threat circumstances. Because individuals coping with terrorist threats feel a greater need for reassurance and security, they are less willing to hold leaders accountable. As the researchers found, participants concerned about terrorism blamed former President George W. Bush less for policy failures associated with his administration. Exposure to the threat of terrorism also has implications for security policy. Participants coping with terrorism are not only more willing to give up civil liberties, but are also more supportive of restrictive immigration policies. They are also more likely to support an interventionist foreign policy. Merolla and Zechmeister’s findings are fully detailed in their recent book, Democracy at Risk: How Terrorist Threats Affect the Public, published with the University of Chicago Press. In the future, Merolla and Zechmeister will be looking at ways to mitigate these effects. They have NSF funding to conduct a study involving eight different countries (four liberal democracies and four illiberal democracies) that will look at whether exposing participants to information on positive democratic values ameliorates the effect of terrorist threats. They are also working on projects to judge how comparable the response to an economic crisis is to the response to a terrorist attack.
