Motives Don't Matter? Motive Attribution and Counterterrorism Policy
Abstract
Across three studies, two experiments, and two different countries (Israel and the United States), we examine how perceptions among members of the public regarding the motives of terrorists' influence support for counterterrorist policy. We find that while perceptions that terrorists are motivated by “hatred” (rather than by a “lack of opportunity”—economic or otherwise) strongly correlate with support for harsher counter‐tactics, and that these perceptions can be changed by providing information from “experts” on the “true” motivations of the outgroup, these changes in perception do not appear to cause change in support for counterterrorism policy. Our findings suggest that among the public, counterterror policy is not as instrumentally driven as much current research assumes.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The public will take note of the intent behind an attack as a factor in how the attack is perceived.
“Therefore, we argue that the public will take note of the intent behind an attack as a factor in how the attack is perceived (Canetti, Gubler, and Zeitzoff 2021).”
From Public Opinion and Cyberterrorism (2023) · cites this paper as Canetti, Gubler, and Zeitzoff 2021
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 59 · Cited by 6
- Authors
- Canetti, D., Gubler, J., & Zeitzoff, T.
- Affiliations
- University of Haifa (IL)
- Brigham Young University (US)
- American University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Canetti, Daphna
- Venue
- Political Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2020-11-02
- Volume
- 42
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 483-499
- ISSN
- 0162-895X (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9221
- OpenAlex
- W3096490890
- Cited by
- 6
- References
- 59
- Citations by year
- 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1
- FWCI
- 1.33
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Political Psychology (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Terrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political Violence
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Death Anxiety and Social Exclusion
- Keywords
- counterterrorism policy, public opinion, terrorist motives, motive attribution, outgroup perception, expert information, political support, United States
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
