Cognitive and Emotional Representations of Terror Attacks: A Cross-cultural Exploration

1
Cognitive and Emotional
Representations of Terror Attacks A
Cross-cultural Exploration

• S. Shiloh
• Tel Aviv University, Israel
• G. Güvenç D. Önkal
• Bilkent University, Turkey

2
Terror Attacks

• A major ongoing concern in many parts of the
  world in recent years (New York and Washington
  D.C., Istanbul, Madrid, London, Israel)
• Low probability high severity threats that could
  occur at any time

3
Impact of Terror Attacks

• Direct losses
• Cost of lives and property damage
• Short term impact
• Victims and families of terror attacks in Spain
  showed greater prevalence of depressive and
  anxiety disorders in contrast to the control
  group
• (Baca Baldomero et al., 2004)

4

• Among a representative sample of Israelis after
  two years of ongoing terror attacks
• 16.4 directly exposed to a terror attack,
• 76.7 at least one traumatic stress-related
  symptom,
• 9.4 acute stress disorder,
• 58.6 feeling depressed
• 60.45 a low sense of safety (Bleich, Gelkopf,
  Solomon, 2003)

5

• The ripple effects
• Avoiding the risk of terror led to a higher death
  toll by car accidents after the attacks of 9/11
  due to many Americans driving instead of flying
  (Gigerenzer, 2006 2004)
• Overall
• significant impact on individuals thought and
  behavior

6

• It is essential to predict adverse effects on
  individuals, and to tailor appropriate risk
  communication messages and policies that aim at
  easing these adversities
• Risk communicators or policy makers should
  understand individuals perceptions of
  terror-related risks

7
Overview on Risk Perception Research

• Discrepancy between lay peoples and experts
  risk perceptions
• Availibility Heuristic (TverskyKahneman, 1974)
• Peoples risk judgments are influenced by the
  availability of the evidence

8

• Psychometric Model (Fischhoff et al., 1978)
• New language for analyzing risk perceptions
  Peoples risk perception is multidimensional
  (Unknown Risk X Dread Risk)
• Affect (Peters and Slovic, 1996 Finucane et al.,
  2000 Lerner and Keltner, 2003)
• how an individual feels about a hazard or its
  potential threats also influences risk perception

9

• Cultural Differences in Risk Perception
• Mental health reactions after terror attacks
  (North et al., 2005)
• Perceived risk of genetically modified food items
  (Finucane Holup, 2005)
• Financial risks (Weber Hsee, 1998).

10
Present Research

• Aim
• Understanding cognitive and emotional risk
  representations of terror attacks
• Conducting a cross-cultural study to test for
  generalization of findings by replication, and to
  examine cross-cultural similarities and
  differences in representations of terror attacks

11
Research Methodology

• Participants
• Bilkent University A total of 185 students,
  consisting of 88 males and 97 females
• (M 22.66, SD 2.56)
• Tel Aviv University A total of 166 students,
  consisting of 41 males and 125 females
• (M 24.81, SD 3.74)
• Significant differences were found between the
  two participant groups with respect to age (t
  6.21, plt0.01) and gender (plt0.01)

12

• Method
• Open-ended interviews to portray respondents
  thoughts and feelings about terror attacks
• A questionnaire to make a closer examination of
  the structure of representations
• Measures
• Demographic and background data
• Age, gender, university major, personal or
  relatives direct involvement in a terror attack,
  perceived knowledge about terror attacks in their
  own country and abroad

13

• Terror Risk Perception Questionnaire (TRPQ)
• Cognitive Part
• A 7-point scale (1 strongly disagree and
• 7 strongly agree)
• Examples of the 27 items in TRPQ
• If I was exposed to a terror attack, I would
  face psychological problems
• My chance of being exposed to a terror attack is
  less than that of other people
• I trust the government to prevent future terror
  attacks
• Being exposed to a terror attack is a result of
  factors beyond my control

14

• Emotional Part
• A semantic differential scale (1 I do not feel
  at all and 7 I strongly feel)
• Negative affect
• fear, helplessness, hopelessness, anger,
  intolerance, pain, loneliness, insecurity,
  sadness and anxiety

15
Results

• Internal structure of the TRPQ
• A final 18-item version of TRPQ
• Four cognitive factors and one affective factor
• Costs (severe consequences of a terror attack)
• Vulnerability (the chances that one would be
  exposed to a terror attack)
• Trust (trust in authorities like government and
  public organizations for security and help)
• Control (perceived personal helplessness and lack
  of control over terror risk)
• Negative Affect

16
Internal consistencies (?) and range of
item-total correlations (R) of TRPQ scales in
Turkish and Israeli samples
17
Correlations between cognitive factors and
negative affect
18

• The more costs and the less control participants
  perceived regarding terror attacks, the more
  negative emotions they expressed
• In the Turkish sample, higher perceived
  vulnerability to terror attacks was also related
  to stronger negative emotions
• No significant correlations were found between
  trust and negative affect in either sample

19

• Relationships between TRPQ, demographic
  variables, experience with attacks and perceived
  knowledge of terror attacks
• Age was unrelated to TRPQ scores in both samples
• Gender was significantly related to costs,
  vulnerability, and negative affect scores in both
  samples
• Female respondents had stronger perceptions of
  costs, vulnerability and negative affect than
  male respondents

20
Gender differences in mean ratings of TRPQ
scores in the Turkish and Israeli samples
21

• Israeli respondents with terror experiences had
  higher emotional scores in the TRPQ compared to
  those without personal experience (F12.54,
  plt.01)
• Israelis who presented themselves as having
  greater knowledge of terror attacks (in Israel)
  had higher vulnerability perceptions than
  Israelis with less perceived knowledge (r.19,
  plt.05)
• Turkish participants with greater perceived
  knowledge of terror attacks (in Turkey) trusted
  authorities more than those with average level of
  perceived knowledge (r.18, plt.02)

22
Comparison between Turkish and Israeli groups on
the means of TRPQ scores
23

• No significant differences between the two
  samples in mean ratings of costs, vulnerability
  and trust
• A significant difference between the two samples
  in mean ratings of control and negative affect
• Turkish participants felt less control than
  Israelis over the risk that they will be victims
  of a terror attack
• Turkish participants were more emotional over
  terrorist attacks than their Israeli counterparts

24
Conclusion

• The current study involved
• developing a questionnaire that measures the
  cognitive and affective components of terror risk
  perception
• applying this questionnaire in two countries with
  terror experience Turkey and Israel

25

• The TRPQ developed in this study may provide a
  first step to develop a standard measure that
  will be a pre-requisite for cross-cultural
  comparisons and insights about the global risk of
  terrorism
• Representations of terror risk identified in our
  study may suggest interventions to promote
  resilience at an individual and population level

26
References

• Baca Baldomero E., Cabanas Arrate M.L., Perez
  Rodriguez M.M., Baca Garcia, E., (2004). Mental
  disorders in victims of terrorism and their
  families. Medicina Clinica, 122, 681-685
• Bleich A, Gelkopf M, Solomon Z. (2003).
  Exposure to terrorism, stress-related mental
  health symptoms, and coping behaviors among a
  nationally representative sample in Israel.
  JAMA-Journal of the American Medical Association,
  290, 612-620
• Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S.,
  Read, S., Combs, B. (1978). How safe is safe
  enough? A psychometric study of attitudes toward
  technological risks and benefits. Policy
  Sciences, 9, 127-152
• Finucane, M. L., and Holup, J. L. (2005).
  Psychosocial and cultural factors affecting the
  perceived risk of genetically modified food An
  overview of the literature. Social Science and
  Medicine, 60, 16031612
• Finucane, M. L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P.,
  Johnson, S. M. (2000). The affect heuristic in
  judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of
  Behavioral Decision Making, 13, 1-17

27
References (contd)

• Gigerenzer G. (2006). Out of the frying pan into
  the fire Behavioral reactions to terrorist
  attacks. Risk Analysis, 26, 347-351
• Gigerenzer G. (2004). Dread risk, September 11,
  and fatal traffic accidents. Psychological
  Science, 15, 286-287
• North CS, Pfefferbaum B, Narayanan P, Thielman
  S, McCoy G, Dumont C, Kawasaki A, Ryosho N,
  Spitznagel EL. (2005). Comparison of
  post-disaster psychiatric disorders after
  terrorist bombings in Nairobi and Oklahoma City.
  British Journal of Psychiatry, 186, 487-493
• Peters, E., Slovic, P. (1996). The role of
  affect and world-views as orienting dispositions
  in the perception and acceptance of nuclear
  power. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26,
  14271453
• Tversky A Kahneman D. (1974). Judgment under
  uncertainty - heuristics and biases. Science,
  185, 1124-1131
• Weber, E.U., Hsee, C. (1998). Cross cultural
  differences in risk perception but cross-cultural
  similarities in attitudes towards perceived risk.
  Management Science, 44, 1205-1217.