Personal Proximity and Reactions to Terrorism

• Author: Jacob Sohlberg,Mattias Agerberg
• Published date: 01 December 2021
• DOI: 10.1177/0010414021997162
• Date: 01 December 2021
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414021997162

Comparative Political Studies

© The Author(s) 2021

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0010414021997162

journals.sagepub.com/home/cps

Article

Personal Proximity and

Reactions to Terrorism

Mattias Agerberg1 and Jacob Sohlberg1

Abstract

In a panel study where one survey was conducted immediately after a terrorist

attack in central Stockholm, with over 20,000 participants, we examine the

possibility that first-hand experiences with terror increases effects compared

to people located elsewhere in Sweden. We use matching and as-if random

variation in our data to identify the effect of personal proximity. While we

find that people close to the attack perceived themselves as more affected,

attesting to the vividness of the experience, we find no evidence of stronger

rally effects, greater outgroup dislike, preferences for security policies or

emotional effects. The results challenge previous theories on public opinion

change in the aftermath of vivid events. In line with prior research, however,

the results indicate that public opinion among people across Sweden did

change on a range of issues. These general effects occurred uniformly,

regardless of geographic location in the country.

Keywords

terrorism, personal proximity, vividness, public opinion

Introduction

“I was right in the middle of it. The truck almost hit me. I was spared by the

smallest of margins.”—Survey Panel Member A

“Saw injured and dead outside the office.”—Survey Panel Member B

1University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden

Corresponding Author:

Mattias Agerberg, Department of Political Science, University of Gothenburg, Box 100,

Goteborg, 405 30, Sweden.

Email: mattias.agerberg@gu.se

997162

CPSXXX10.1177/0010414021997162Comparative Political StudiesAgerberg and Sohlberg

research-article

2021

2021, Vol. 54(14) 2512 –2545

Agerberg and Sohlberg 2513

2 Comparative Political Studies 00(0)

“I was half a block away. People were running toward me, screaming.”—

Survey Panel Member C

Terrorist attacks are associated with rally-round-the-flag effects, anti-immi-

grant sentiments, and other changes in perceptions, attitudes and behavior

(Woods, 2011). These types of consequences are most acutely felt in the coun-

try of the attack, but also, albeit to a lesser degree, in neighboring countries.

People in countries far away from the attack are the least affected (Böhmelt

et al., 2019). This may imply that the closer individuals are to a terrorist attack,

the stronger they react. There is some—although inconclusive—evidence in

favor of this proposition. For example, the terrorist attacks on 9/11 influenced

people in the New York City metropolitan area to a greater degree (Fischhoff

et al., 2003; Huddy et al., 2002a). Similarly, individuals in the areas around

mass shootings, a related traumatic event, tend to become more in favor of

stricter gun controls (Newman & Hartman, 2019). However, these studies only

focus on people in the general vicinity (e.g., 100 miles from the event) and not

on the individuals with direct exposure. Thus, while they point to the impor-

tance of the geographic location of the terrorist attack in relation to the potential

victims of terrorism, to date, no previous study exist on the broad political

consequences of being at the exact location of a terrorist attack.

On 7 April 2017, a supporter of the Islamic State stole a truck in the city

center of Stockholm, Sweden, and used it as weapon, speeding down a busy

shopping street. Five people were killed and fifteen wounded. Since the

attack happened in the central part of the country’s biggest city, many became

witnesses to the terror, including a large number of individuals that we previ-

ously had surveyed about terrorism-related issues. The first survey included

over 20,000 people.1 After the terrorist attack, we surveyed this group twice

about their attitudes and reactions. Therefore, by design and by chance, we

can describe what it means to be in the middle of a terrorist attack and how it

influences public opinion.

The theoretical rationale behind a stronger effect among the directly

impacted rests on the vividness of the experience. As the quotes above high-

light, individuals close to a terrorist attack have a radically different sensory

experience compared to people located elsewhere. Over several decades, vivid

information has been suggested to play a particularly meaningful role in shap-

ing reactions (Janis, 1967; Johnson & Tversky, 1983; Loewenstein et al.,

2001; Newman & Hartman, 2019; Nisbett & Ross, 1980). However, the rela-

tionship between experiencing a threatening situation and attitudinal or behav-

ioral change is more complex than what is traditionally assumed (Barney &

Schaffner, 2019; Weinstein, 1989). Since it is unclear whether or not personal

experiences with terror affects attitudes more compared to those who learn

2514 Comparative Political Studies 54(14)

Agerberg and Sohlberg 3

about it from other sources, our purpose is to investigate this research

question.

The potential consequences of terrorism on public opinion are wide-rang-

ing. Therefore, we study three broad categories of politically relevant out-

comes: rally effects, outgroup dislike, and security preferences. Moreover,

we examine the emotional consequences of terrorism, a fourth category. By

focusing on many facets of reactions, we are able to give a fuller and more

fine-grained picture of how terrorism affects people.

We document several general effects of the attack in the sample. Individuals

in the post-attack survey express high levels of anger and anxiety. We show that

these emotions are connected to several interesting attitude changes. Next, uti-

lizing the uniquely detailed data, we identify individuals as either proximate or

not proximate to the attack, using three different definitions of “closeness.” The

indicators have different advantages and should, taken together, provide a good

overall indication of the proximity effect. To our knowledge, this is the first

study able to explore this research question at this level of detail, with a large

group of respondents with first-hand experiences of the attack.

We use matching and as-if random variation in our data to identify the

effect of proximity. Overall, we find little evidence of a specific proximity

effect. Individuals close to the attack neither express higher levels of anger

nor larger attitude changes than similar, less proximate individuals. This is

true even for individuals who directly witnessed the events. Thus, our results

show that for these types of outcomes, proximity might be of less importance

than suggested by several previous studies on terror events.

Theory and Previous Research

Distance to Terrorist Attacks

The geographic location of a terrorist attack is a major factor behind reac-

tions. When attacks happen in the same country as the observer, it moves

public opinion on many issues (Bar-Tal & Labin, 2001; Esses et al., 2002;

Gaines, 2002; Huddy et al., 2002b; Ladd, 2007; Vasilopoulos, 2018). The

spatial component is underlined by studies on how attacks in one country

affect public opinion in others. The strongest effects are in the country of the

attack, but countries close to the attack are also affected. With growing dis-

tance, effects are attenuated (Böhmelt et al., 2019). That said, even popula-

tions in countries far away from an attack can be affected, yet that evidence

is weaker (Finseraas & Listhaug, 2013). Similarly, individuals who are at a

higher risk of becoming victims of terrorism because they are within range of

rockets are more likely to support right-leaning politicians (Getmansky &