Bridging Partisan Divisions over Antiterrorism Policies

• Author: Neil Malhotra,Elizabeth Popp
• DOI: 10.1177/1065912910385251
• Date: 01 March 2012
• Published date: 01 March 2012
• Subject Matter: Articles

Political Research Quarterly

65(1) 34 –47

© 2012 University of Utah

Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1065912910385251

http://prq.sagepub.com

Bridging Partisan Divisions over

Antiterrorism Policies: The Role

of Threat Perceptions

Neil Malhotra1 and Elizabeth Popp2

Abstract

The authors examine how changes in perceptions of threat affect individuals’ policy views as well as the political

implications of this relationship. They administered a survey experiment to a representative sample of the U.S.

population in which they exogenously manipulated individuals’ perceived likelihood of a future terrorist attack on

American soil and assessed subsequent changes in support for terrorism-related public policies. They find that

reducing perceived threat substantially decreases support for policies intended to combat terrorism and that this

effect is concentrated among Democrats who believe another terrorist attack is likely to occur. These results suggest

that threat, as part of the larger information environment, can alter partisan divisions on controversial policies.

Keywords

terrorism, threat, policy attitudes, partisanship, polarization, experiment

The September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and

the Pentagon profoundly influenced U.S. foreign and

domestic policy agenda, drawing attention to the need for

policies intended to prevent a subsequent event. In the

wake of the attacks, both Republicans and Democrats at

the mass and elite levels supported several antiterrorism

policies. For instance, the Patriot Act sailed through Con-

gress with bipartisan support on a 98 to 1 vote in the Sen-

ate and a 357 to 66 vote in the House. Similarly, the

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terror-

ists passed 98 to 0 in the Senate and 420 to 1 in the House.

In addition, 86 percent of Americans favored increased

technological surveillance in public locations and 83 per-

cent supported taking military action against a country

harboring terrorists.1

As shown in Figure 1, the consensus regarding the

appropriate response to terrorism proved to be short-lived.

Immediately after September 11, 2001, nearly 90 percent

of Americans believed that another terrorist attack was

“likely.”2 In addition, both Republicans and Democrats

approved of President Bush’s handling of terrorism, rep-

resenting a bipartisan coalition that supported government

policies following September 11. Six and a half years after

the events of September 11, though, the proportion of

Americans believing that an attack is “likely” fell well

below 50 percent. Concurrent with this decline in threat,

the bipartisan coalition in support for President Bush’s

terrorism policies dissolved. Support among Democrats

declined dramatically along with threat perceptions from

2001 to 2007, whereas support among Republicans dropped

relatively little. These poll results suggest that declining

threat perceptions may have contributed to the dissolution

of the bipartisan coalition in support of the Bush admin-

istration’s antiterrorism policies.3

Given that threat perceptions and the bipartisan con-

sensus on the issue of antiterrorism policy eroded in the

years following the attacks, how does new information

about the threat of an attack influence antiterrorism pol-

icy support years after September 11, well after the initial

salience of the attacks has waned? To address this ques-

tion we conducted an experimental study, administered

to a representative sample of the U.S. population recruited

via random-digit dialing, in which we manipulated indi-

viduals’ perceived likelihood of a future terrorist attack on

American soil and assessed subsequent changes in support

for public policies.

We find that threat perceptions substantially affect

support for policies intended to reduce terrorism. Repub-

licans, who generally perceive greater terrorist threat and

1University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

2University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL, USA

Corresponding Author:

Neil Malhotra, University of Pennsylvania, Department of Political

Science, 208 S. 37th Street, Room 217, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6215

Email: neilmal@sas.upenn.edu