Fear of terrorism: media exposure and subjective fear of attack

ABSTRACT

In many Western countries, citizen knowledge of terrorist events is intrinsically shaped by the style of broadcasted messages published by the media. Media discourses regarding terrorist acts raise questions about how such rhetoric elicits fear in people who typically experience such events through news reports. However, we do not fully understand the impact of the media on perceptions of terrorism as clearly as we understand the relationship between the media and fear of crime. This study examines how media sources accessed actively (e.g. through newspapers; Internet) or passively (e.g. through television; radio) influence knowledge and fear of terrorism. We find receiving information about terrorism from multiple media sources increases fear of terrorism, but media sources accessed passively are not as influential as media sources accessed more actively. These results highlight how media consumption from various sources may affect one’s fear of terrorism, and further illustrates how the role of perceived knowledge may exacerbate or mitigate fear. Implications for policy and practice are discussed.

KEYWORDS:

• Fear of terrorism
• mass media
• information processing
• media effects

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. Aly, “Australian Muslim Responses,” 27–40.

2. Aly and Green, “Fear, Anxiety and Terror,” 268–281; and Beckett and Sasson, “Crime, Politics, and the Public,” 27–49.

3. Norris, Montague and Just, “Framing Terrorism,” 3–26.

4. Webster, Phalen and Lichty, Ratings Analysis; and Cooper and Tang, “Predicting Audience Exposure,” 400–18.

5. Nellis and Savage, “Media Exposure on Terrorism,” 748–68.

6. Austin, “Australians Have Little to Fear.”

7. See, for example, Pew Research Centre, Global Attitudes Survey.

8. Ewart, Cherney and Murphy, “News Coverage of Islam and Muslims in Australia,” 147–63.

9. Altheide, “Terrorism and Politics of Fear.”

10. Ibid.

11. McNamara, “Counter-Terrorism Laws and The Media,” 95–115.

12. Aly, “Australian Muslim Responses,” 27–40; Cherney and Murphy, “Being a ‘Suspect Community’,” 480–96; and Schmuck et al., “Shortened title,” 610–34.

13. Jackson and Gray, “Functional Fear and Public Insecurities,” 1–22.

14. Spalek and Imtoual, “Muslim Communities and Counter-Terrorism Responses,” 185–202.

15. Misis, Bush and Hendrix, “College Students’ Fears About Terrorism,” 1–14.

16. Huddy et al., Fear and Terrorism, 255–80.

17. Nellis, “Gender Differences,”; and Huddy et al., Fear and Terrorism, 255–280.

18. See note 5 above.

19. See note 16 above.

20. See note 18 above.

21. Ibid.

22. See note 15 above.

23. Altheide, “Mass Media and Terrorism,” 287–308; and Beckett and Sasson, “Crime, Politics, and the Public,” 27–49.

24. Signorielli and Morgan, “Cultivation Analysis.”

25. Warr, “Dangerous Situations,” 891–907.

26. Power, Kubey and Kiosis, “Audience Activity and Passivity,” 116–59.

27. Beckett and Sasson, “Crime, Politics, and the Public,” 27–49.

28. Banks, “Spaces of (In)Security,” 169–87.

29. Jamieson and Romer, “Violence in Popular TV,” 31–41.

30. Grabe and Drew, “Crime Cultivation,” 147–71.

31. See note 22 above.

32. Rohner and Frey, “Blood and Ink,” 129–45.

33. See note 18 above.

34. Cho et al., “Media, Terrorism and Emotionality,” 309–27.

35. Gauntlett, “Moving Experiences.”

36. See note 24 above.

37. Keinan, et al., “Attitudes and Reactions To Media,” 149–65.

38. Potter, “Conceptualising the Audience,” 19–34.

39. Abiocca, “Opposing Conceptions of the Audience,” 51–80.

40. See note 26 above.

41. See note 26 above for an overview.

42. Rubin, “Ritualised and Instrumental TV Viewing,” 67–77.

43. Blumler and McQuail, “Television in Politics.”

44. Armstrong and McAdams, “Blogs of Information,” 435–56.

45. See note 45 above.

46. See note 43 above.

47. Ibid.

48. Ibid.

49. Rosengren, “Uses and Gratifications,” 269–86.

50. Palmgreen and Rayburn, “Comparison of Gratification Models,” 334–46.

51. Blumler, “Role of Theory,” 9–36.

52. Warr, “Dangerous Situations,” 893.

53. Boyle, et al., “Information Seeking,” 155–67.

54. See note 25 above.

55. Ibid.

56. Holahan, “Environmental Psychology.”

57. Berlyne, “Conflict, Arousal and Curiosity.”

58. Brashers et al., “Communication in the Management of Uncertainty,” 63–84.

59. See note 53 above.

60. See note 18 above.

61. See, for example, note 5 above.

62. Dowler, “Media Consumption and Public Attitudes,” 109–26.

63. Renauer, “Reducing Fear of Crime,” 41–62.

64. Huddy et al., Fear and Terrorism, 255–80; Huddy et al., “Threat, Anxiety, and Support,” 593–608; and Nellis “Gender Differences.”

65. Ksiazek, Peer and Lessard, “User Engagement with Online News,” 502–20.

66. Ruggiero, “Uses and Gratifications,” 3–37.

67. Whiting and Williams, “Why People Use Social Media,” 362–9.

68. See note 46 above.

69. Cooper and Tang, “Predicting Audience Exposure,” 400–18; Rubin, “Ritualised and Instrumental TV Viewing,” 67–77; and Webster et al., Ratings Analysis.

70. See note 54 above.

71. See note 63 above.

72. See note 18 above.

73. See note 17 above.

74. See note 64 above.

75. Pantazis and Pemberton, “From the “Old” to the “New” Suspect Community,” 646–66.

76. See note 73 above.

77. In the crime context, see for example Jackson “Validating New Measures,” 297–315; in the terrorism context see for example note 5 and note 17 above.

78. See note 54 above.

79. For examples of passive media sources, see Webster et al., Ratings Analysis and for examples of active sources see Cooper and Tang, “Predicting Audience Exposure,” 400–18.

80. See note 30 above.

81. Acierno et al., “Predictors of Fear,” 385–96.

82. Drakulich, “Concerns for Self or Family,” 1168–207.

83. See note 81 above.

84. Fay-Ramirez et al., “Assessing the Effect,” 21–35.

85. Fay-Ramirez et al., “Assessing the Effect,” 21–35; and Boscarino, et al., “Fear of Terrorism and Preparedness,” 505.

86. See note 18 above.

87. See note 40 above.

88. Ibid.

89. See note 39 above.

90. See note 22 above.

91. See note 54 above.

92. Gerbner, “Toward ‘Cultural Indicators’,” 137–148.

93. See note 53 above.

94. See note 57 above.

95. Cordner, “Reducing Fear of Crime.”

96. Hale, “Fear of Crime,” 79–150; and Huddy et al., Fear and Terrorism, 255–80.

97. Matei and Britt, “Virtual Sociability.”

98. Morgan and Shanahan, “The State of Cultivation,” 337–55.

99. Altheide, “Mass Media and Terrorism,” 287–308.

100. Chiricos, Padgett and Gertz, “Fear, TV news,” 755–86.

101. Nellis and Savage, “Media Exposure on Terrorism,” 748–68; and Rubin et al., “Ritualized and Instrumental Television Viewing,” 67–77.

102. Altheide, “Mass Media and Terrorism,” 287–308; Furedi, “Politics of fear”; and Glassner, “The culture of fear.”

103. Valkenburg and Peter, “Five Challenges,” 197–215.

104. Muncie and McLaughlin, “The Problem of Crime.”

105. See note 16 above.

106. Inglehart, “The Silent Revolution”; and Inglehart, “Values, Ideology and Cognitive Mobilization.”

107. Inglehart, “Values, Ideology and Cognitive Mobilization,” (see note 106 above).

108. Aly and Green, “Fear, Anxiety, and State of Terror,” 271.

109. Intravia, et al., “Social Media Consumption and Fear of Crime,” 158–168.

110. Leigh, “Social Media Making People Fearful.”

111. See note 54 above.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Australian Research Council [RO70002];

Notes on contributors

Harley Williamson

Harley Williamson is a PhD candidate in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice and is a member of the Griffith Criminology Institute at Griffith University. Harley is interested in understanding people’s attitudes towards terrorism. Harley’s research currently explores why people come to support terrorism, the role of social identity processes, and the attitudes of vulnerable groups.

Suzanna Fay

Suzanna Fay is a Senior Lecturer in Criminology at the University of Queensland. Suzanna received her PhD in Sociology at the University of Washington where she concentrated comparative perspectives of crime, immigration, and neighborhood action as well as research methodology via her association with the Centre for Statistics and the Social Sciences. Her current research considers how perceptions of gun regulation by police, dealers, and the community influence debate and enforcement of Australia’s gun laws. More specifically, her research is concerned with understanding how public discussion and debate has marginalized particular groups, such as farmers/recreational shooters, and explores how gun control might be improved by a more inclusive public discussion about firearms.

Toby Miles-Johnson

Toby Miles-Johnson is a Senior Lecturer and Researcher in the School of Justice at Queensland University of Technology (QUT). Toby received his PhD in Criminology at the University of Queensland. His current research considers police organizations and inclusion and diversity, and police officer perceptions of recruitment, retention, deployment and promotion. His research interests include: Policing, Policing Diversity, Policing Minority Groups, Policing and Same-Sex Domestic Violence, and Threat and Victimization.