Thermal imaging video released by police shows the capture of the Boston Marathon bombing suspects. The video shows officers with thermal imaging equipment tracking one of the suspects hiding in a boat in a backyard. It then shows police firing flashbangs and pulling the injured suspect from the boat and placing him in an ambulance. The release of this video provided insight into the police tactics used to locate and capture the suspects in the Boston Marathon attack.

2. http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/21/police-
release-thermal-imaging-video-of-suspects-capture/

3.  What is terrorism?
 Very difficult to study dispassionately.
 Motivations of terrorists
 Can we use this knowledge to help
prevent terrorism?
 Reactions of mass publics to terrorist
attacks
 Can we use this knowledge to help us
prevent over-reacting to terrorist attacks
in ways that can put democracy at risk?

4.  President BarackObama chose not to use the word
"terrorism" in his first remarks hours after the Boston
Marathon bombing. But within hours, and with no
suspects or motive announced, Obama said: "Any time
bombs are used to target innocent civilians it is an act of
terror.“
 No universally accepted definition.
 Dictionary: the use of force or threats to demoralize,
intimidate and subjugate, especially as a political weapon
 An urge to label any horrible violent act as terrorism.

5. 1. Was the motive political?
2. Did the attacker seek to influence a broader
audience?
3. Did it involve an organized group (not a lone
wolf)?
4. Did it target civilians?
5. Was it carried out by a non-state actor - that
is, a person or persons outside the
government?

6. 1. South America
2. Middle East/North Africa
3. Western Europe
4. South Asia
5. Central America
6. Sub-Saharan Africa
7. Southeast Asia

10.  Massive attack:
 9/11 in the U.S., Spain, Britain
 Chronic, persistent attacks
 Israel, India, N. Ireland

11.  Democracies are more often targets because they are more
porous
 Goals of terrorists are often difficult to pinpoint because there are
often many terrorist factions competing with one another
 Goal 1: Strike fear into the public to achieve political goals
 Goal 2: Recruit followers by:
▪ Provoking government to over-react and lose legitimacy
▪ Demonstration of its power
 Controversy exists on whether terrorists actually achieve their political
goals
 Everyone agrees: the impact of terrorism extends far beyond
immediate civilian fatalities and destruction

12. 1. Pathologies of terrorists
2. Personality characteristics
3. Demographic factors (e.g., poverty)
4. Political motives

13.  Leaders: Leaders generally very educated
and from a privileged background: Osama bin
Laden, Zawahiri
 Perpetrators: Often poor and uneducated; no
other path
 Big International terrorism events: Often
very educated; 9/11 Hijackers, London
Bombers, ‘Underwear bomber’.

14.  Crazed Lunatic or RationalActor?
 Would you or this?
prefer this?

15.  Lures young men with raging hormones
 Promise of Houri’s: Nymphs of paradise
 Not in Qur’an or in Prominent Islamic literature, but used for recruiting
methods
 Palestinian/Pakistani groups recruit poor children,

16.  Terrorism as "the warfare of the weak"
 DOMAIN: Domestic/International
 Motivation: Political; Religious; Apocalyptic;
Environmental; leftist/fundamentalist

17.  National Separatist: cultural, ethnic, tribal,
religious, racial separation from the larger
group, often with demands for independence
or autonomy

19.  Killing in the Name of God; Often political
undertones.
 Al-Qaeda?
 Abortion Clinic Bombers
 Suicide Bombers?

20.  LoneWolf vs. SophisticatedGroup

21. Can we use this knowledge to help prevent over-reacting to terrorist
attacks in ways that can put democracy at risk?

22.  Public responses to terrorism can pose
a real threat to the health of
democracy.
 Of course we want to prevent future
terrorist attacks, but…
 Laws are passed that compromise
democratic values and practices for years
to come
▪ —just ask Eric Snowden. Until he leaked
classified documents, we had no idea how far-
reaching the government’s surveillance of
citizens of allied leaders was and how complicit
the legal system and telecomm industries were.
 The “war on terrorism” is unlike traditional
wars in that there is no clear end date and
the threat of terrorism is unlikely to recede
in the near future.

23.  Perceptions of threat
 Political Ideology
 Authoritarianism
 Ethnocentrism
 Stereotypes of Muslims
 Terror ManagementTheory

24.  Several years after
9/11, perceived threat
from terrorism
remained stubbornly
high.
 High percentage of
the public worried
about being a victim
of a terrorist attack
several years after
9/11.

25.  Perceived threat has a powerful impact in
motivating support for policies to cope with
threat.
 One of the most pervasive and powerful
effects of threat is to increase intolerance,
prejudice, ethnocentrism, and xenophobia,
regardless of whether threat is to society or to
oneself.
 Three ways of coping with terrorist threat:
 Support restrictions on civil liberties at home
 Support the war on terror abroad
 Support for a strong leader

26. •Immediately after 9/11,
support for policies
restricting civil liberties
(i.e., the “government
taking all necessary steps
to prevent terrorism even if
it means your basic civil
liberties would be
violated”) shot up to 50%,
then gradually dropped
down to 30% within a year.
•But the Patriot Act was
signed into law 10-26-01,
and remains the law of the
land.

27. Using student samples in U.S. (Vandy) & Mexico, randomly assign individuals to either:
• “GoodTimes” condition:
• “TerrorThreat” condition: 1.5 minute audiovisual presentation designed to make
the threat of another terror attack salient in the respondent’s mind.
Find that theTerrorThreat condition increases:
1.Worry about terrorism 2.Support for getting tough on
immigration & crime
3.Support for tough antiterrorism
laws and more militant anti-terror
polices in Mexico and U.S.
Question: Can we generalize these results to ordinary adults outside the laboratory?

28.  Research Questions:
 Do crises affect citizens’ perceptions of the
charisma of political leaders?
 Do charismatic politicians avoid blame?
 Important questions because politicians have an
incentive to use fear to manipulate the public.

29.  Experimental Study just prior to the 2004 U.S. elections:
 Participants (undergraduate political science classes at a large public
university (Vandy) in the study were randomly assigned to one of 3
news treatment groups:
 Status Quo (control)
 GoodTimes
▪ Happy images and positive information about the state of the United
States and its citizens. Our voiceover noted that “overall, more
Americans report in surveys that they are healthier and happier
than ever before”
 TerroristThreat
▪ 1.5 min. news treatment contained frightening images and
information regarding security issues, and included statements such
as “. . . the CIA is warningAmericans that al Qaeda has people in
the United States on the verge of mounting a large-scale terrorist
attack.”

30.  Charisma: evaluate Bush on a battery of
items from the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire, trigger words selected:
 Vision, pride, goes beyond self-interest, respect,
power, values and beliefs, sense of purpose, moral
and ethical, sense of mission, optimistic,
enthusiastic, confidence.
 Blame Attribution: Agree/Disagree with:
 “Recent reports from the Senate intelligence
committee indicate that the CIA provided
faulty information on the presence of weapons
of mass destruction in Iraq, which was one of
Bush’s main justifications for the war.”
 To what extent is Bush to blame for U.S. failures
in Iraq?

31.  Findings: In the Crisis (vs. GoodTimes) Condition:
 CharismaTraits were more likely to be selected to describe Bush
 Charisma decreased blame for Bush, even among Democrats (figure)
Figure. Probability of Strongly Blaming Bush at Different Levels of Perceptions of Bush’s
Charisma, by Partisanship and Condition
Pr(BushtoBlame)

32. Map-of-rockets-launches-from-gaza-
from-2014-07-08-to-2014-07-31 2

33. Figure 1. Fluctuations in Terrorist Attacks and Political Tolerance over Time
3.544.555.5
MeanPoliticalTolerance
0
50
100150
AnnualTerroristAttacks
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
Terrorist Attacks Political Tolerance
• Dependent Variable:
18 surveys measuring Political
Tolerance—i.e., support for
granting political freedoms to
one’s domestic political enemies
• IndependentVariable:
# of Annual Terrorist Attacks
• Hypothesis:
Does an increase in terrorist
attacks 3 months before the survey
lead to a decline in political
tolerance?

34. 0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
TotalTerroristAttacks
First Intifada Second IntifadaOslo Accord

35.  Selection: “Here is a list of groups in politics. As I read the list, please tell me which of these
groups do you like the least or if there is some group that you like even less than the groups listed
here, please tell me the name of that group.”
 1985 groups: 01-Neturey karta, 02-Rakah, communists, 03-Kah (the league for Jewish defense, the
movement of rabbi Cahana), 04-Agudat Israel, Pag"I, 05-Shl"ey, 06-Gush emunim, 07-the progress
movement for peace, 08-groups in Israel that supportAshaf, 09-hatchiya, 10-Shalom achshav, 11-Mazpen,
12-Yesh Gvul, 13-other. Which one?
 2011 groups: 1. Israel Beytenu; 2.The Islamic movement; 3.YESHA council; 4. Haihud HaLeumi; 5.
Meretz; 6.The movement for progressive Judaism; 7. Agudat Israel/Yahadut HaTora/Degel H; 8. Shas; 9.
Mafdal/ HaBait Hayehudi; 10. Kah (the league for Jewish defense,; 11. Hadash, communists; 12. Balad; 13.
Raam-Taal; 14. Shalom Achshav (peace now movement); 15. AleYarok; 16. Other, which?; 17. anyone; 99.
dont' know/ don't want to answer
 PoliticalTolerance: “Now I am going to read you some statements about your least liked group.
Then I would like you to tell me whether you strongly agree (1), agree (2), are uncertain (3),
disagree (4), or strongly disagree (5) with that statement.”
 members of that group should be banned from being Prime Minister of Israel.
 members of that group should be outlawed.
 members of that group should be allowed to make a speech in public rallies and onT.V.
 members of that group should have their phones tapped.
 members of that group should be allowed to demonstrate.

36. 3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
PoliticalTolerance
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Number of Terroist Attacks (3 Months Prior to Each Survey)
Note: Predicted values and 95% confidence intervals are based on Model 3, Table 1.
Panel A. Average Effects of Terrorist Attacks

38. • On the one hand, Right-
wingers tend to select Israeli
Arab groups and Jewish leftist
groups as least-liked.
• And they are less politically
tolerant of Israeli Arab groups
than non-Arab groups (i.e.,
Jewish leftists).
• BUT:Terrorist attacks have
about the same impact on Right-
wingers’ political intolerance of
Arab & Non-Arab groups (i.e.,
the blue line is just as steep for
Arab & Non-Arab groups).
• Why? Right-wingers support a
Jewish majority state, and view
its opponents (leftist Jews, Israeli
Arabs) as a threat to national
security.

40.  The Left supports negotiations with
Palestinians in the occupied territories, a
two-state solution and granting full rights to
IsraeliArabs.
 The Right opposes a two-state solution,
views IsraeliArabs as a security threat (a “fifth
column”) and a political threat to its
nationalist goals.

42.  Exposure to terrorism  PTSD (Posttraumatic
stress disorder),  perceived threat from
minorities political & social intolerance toward
minorities in Israel
 The personal exposure to political violence that
results in psychological distress (PTSD) affects
political worldviews.This happens when people who
are exposed to traumatic events feel threatened and
vulnerable as a result of their exposure to terrorism
and the climate that surrounds terrorism. Such
psychological distress, in turn, exacerbates
perceptions of threat, which further invoke “threat
buffers” such as political exclusionism.

43.  When in danger, it’s natural to feel afraid.This fear triggers many split-
second changes in the body to prepare to defend against the danger or
to avoid it.This “fight-or-flight” response is a healthy reaction meant to
protect a person from harm. But in post-traumatic stress disorder
(PTSD), this reaction is changed or damaged. People who have PTSD
may feel stressed or frightened even when they’re no longer in danger.
 PTSD develops after a terrifying ordeal that involved physical harm or
the threat of physical harm.The person who develops PTSD may have
been the one who was harmed, the harm may have happened to a loved
one, or the person may have witnessed a harmful event that happened to
loved ones or strangers.
 PTSD was first brought to public attention in relation to war veterans,
but it can result from a variety of traumatic incidents, such as mugging,
rape, torture, being kidnapped or held captive, child abuse, car accidents,
train wrecks, plane crashes, bombings, or natural disasters such as floods
or earthquakes.

44. Recent exposure to terrorism: whether in
the three prior months (1) they experienced
the death of a family member or friend; (2)
witnessed a terrorist attack or had been
present at a site where there were injuries
or fatalities; (3) experienced an injury of
oneself, a family member, or a friend; or (4)
experienced a period when they did not
know if someone close to them was killed or
injured, but feared the person might be.
Exclusionist political attitudes toward PCIs
(PalestinianCitizens of Israel) and NJIs
(Non-JewishCitizens of Israel): “PCIs/NJIs
should have the same welfare rights as
Jewish citizens”; “PCIs/NJIs should have the
same education services as Jewish citizens”;
“PCI/NJI family members are entitled to
Israeli citizenship”; “It is appropriate that
PCIs/NJIs will dwell in the state of Israel”;
“PCIs/NJIs should be able to participate in
elections;” “PCIs/NJIs should be able to
participate in different political activities,
like Jewish citizens.”
Daphna Canetti-Nisim, Journal of Conflict Resolution 2009.
Interviews between August 17, September 8, 2004 and again 1.5
years later (on February 22–April 19 and July 31–October 9, 2005

45.  The avoidance of reminders of human
mortality is the central, overriding fact of
human life.
 Humans are the only animal aware of their
own mortality.
 Sexual activity, achievement, prejudice,
emotion, striving, believing, are all ways of
coping with the terror that the idea of
dying evokes.
 Fear of death is mostly outside our conscious
awareness, but it triggers two defenses:
▪ The maintenance of self-esteem: Building and
pursuing self-esteem—feeling valued, helps people
forget about death.
▪ The maintenance of worldviews: To defend against
death anxiety, people must believe that some valued
aspect of themselves will continue, either literally
(e.g., heaven) or symbolically (e.g., children,
achievements), after one’s biological death.

46.  Fear of death induces people to defend themselves against death by:
 clinging to their cultural identities, working hard to live up to their
culture's values and going to great lengths to defend those values.

47.  Experimental manipulations of
mortality salience (MS):
 (a) standard death essay questions
(“PLEASE BRIEFLY DESCRIBETHE
EMOTIONSTHATTHETHOUGHT OF
YOUR OWN DEATH AROUSES IN
YOU”).
 (b) subliminal prime of the words,
“death” or “dead” flash on the screen
for a matter of milliseconds, too briefly
for participants to consciously report
seeing them.

48.  Applying the theory to the conflict
between the Middle East and theWest:
 Studies in the United States, Iran and Israel:
 In all three countries, people who were
subtly reminded of their mortality—and
thus primed to cling more strongly to their
group identities—were more likely to
support violence against the out group.
▪ Iranians were more likely to support suicide
bombing againstWesterners.
▪ Americans were more likely to advocate military
force to battle Islamic extremists, even if it meant
killing thousands of civilians.
▪ Israelis were more likely to condone violence
against Palestinians.

49.  Intergroup conflict
 When differences between people are seen as a
challenge to one’s beliefs and sense of value (self-
esteem), group conflict, prejudice, can become
very intense.
 Peace can become difficult in war and
violence because our most vile attitudes and
actions toward other groups stem from a fear
of death that we cannot fully comprehend or
cope with.