The Perceived Risk of Terrorism in the U.S and Canada Compared to Actual Incidence of Terrorist Attacks – Explanation and Implications.

The perceived risk of terrorism in the U.S and Canada affects significantly more of the population than the incidence of actual terrorist attacks. We will examine this phenomenon, discuss the reasons for excessive perceived risks and consider the implications of a high level of perceived risk.

The actual incidence of terrorist attacks in the U.S in 2002, the last year for which data is available was 36. That is 36 attacks against American interests, defined as attacks against American objects and persons. (Knight et al) The actual number of terrorist attacks on American soil was likely much lower, because any terrorist attack worldwide involving an American citizen is included in this statistic. Statistics for Canada reveal no significant terrorist attacks on Canadian soil in recent years. Worldwide statistics indicate 1,907 deaths from terrorist attacks worldwide in 2004, the last year for which data was available. Injuries from terrorist attacks numbered 6,704 worldwide. (Waxman) This represents an extremely minor number of deaths and injuries when compared to other threats. The perceived threat of terrorism in the U.S and Canada is much higher than these figures would suggest is rational. We will next examine the reasons for this disparity.

The most significant causal factor for the perceived threat of terrorism being higher than the actual risk in some countries is the incidence of terrorism in the past. Canada has not experienced a terrorist attack in recent history, and the lower perceived threat of terrorism in the population reflects this fact. In a recent survey only 13.3% of Canadians perceived terrorism as a threat to the population, and only 5.7% of Canadians perceived terrorism as a threat to them personally. (Lemyre et al) In contrast, American’s have experienced a recent terrorist attack in the September 11th attacks on the world trade center and pentagon. As expected, the perceived risk of terrorism in the U.S is significantly higher than in Canada. In a survey conducted in November 2001 50% of Americans perceived the average American as likely to be hurt in a terrorist attack within the next year. Approximately 20% of the population perceived themselves as likely to be personally hurt by a terrorist attack within the next year. A follow up survey conducted one year later, in November 2002 showed that the perception of the risk of terrorism remained high – with 19.2% of the population still perceiving themselves as likely to be personally hurt by a terrorist attack in the next year. (Schuster et al) In London, following the July 20005 bombings, a survey revealed that 86% of residents believed another attack was likely in the near future. (Rubin et al) These figures provide strong support for identifying past terrorist attacks within an individual’s home country as a causal factor to the perceived threat of terrorism.

Also deserving of mention is the role of the media in creating the perception of threat. A recent poll of Canadians found that the source most often referred to by Canadians for information on terrorism was the Canadian media. (Lemyre et al) The source least often referred to was Elected Politicians. This is likely a contributing factor to the perception of risk. Media reporting can be sensational, selective and inaccurate. This may contribute to distorted perceptions of the threat of terrorism.

The perceived threat of terrorism also varies by demographics. A recent Canadian survey conducted by Louise Lemyre et al identified women as more likely to perceive terrorism as a threat than men. A U.S survey conducted by Schuster et al found that along with women, visible minorities and those living within close proximity to past terrorist attacks were the most likely to perceive terrorism as a threat.

We have established that the perceived risk of terrorism is incongruent with the actual occurrence of terrorist attacks, as well as identifying three major reasons for this phenomenon – past terrorist attacks, media coverage and demographics. We now turn to the implications of high perceived risk of terrorism.

This perception of risk can be seen as supporting the ultimate goal of the terrorists, who use violent acts as propaganda to gain attention for their agendas. The perception that an individual or country is at risk of a terrorist attack creates a culture of fear. This supports the goals of the terrorist organization in two ways: first, it supports the terrorist organization’s goal of creating turmoil in the city or nation it’s targeting. Second, and perhaps more importantly, the perception of risk fuels media attention that serves as propaganda for the terrorist organization, helping to disseminate its message to the masses. (Nacos et al) An example of this type of reaction to a terrorist attack was the U.S reaction to the attacks of 9/11. The attacks not only created fear and uncertainty in the U.S, affecting the Government, the economy and the populace, but they also served to spread awareness of the Al Qaeda and their agenda. In his paper entitled ‘Media Spectacle and the Crisis of Democracy, Douglas Kellner refers to the 9/11 attacks as ‘‘shocking global media events that were used by Osama bin Laden and like-minded terrorists…to pursue their respective agendas”. The media amplifies the perception of risk by running pieces that focus on the threat of terrorism and not on prevention. To quote Nacos et al in their paper entitled 'Prevention of Terrorism in Post-9/11 America: News Coverage, Public Perceptions, and the Politics of Homeland Security': “During the 39-month period we examined [following the September 11th terrorist attacks] the combined evening TV broadcasts…. Aired merely 85 stories that were specifically concerned with preventing terrorism at home. In contrast, during the same period… the networks aired a total of 373 stories that dealt with the threat of terrorism.”

In addition to the distorted coverage that terrorism receives in the media, the coverage of terrorism as a whole is dependant on recent terrorist attacks. Following a terrorist attack, media attention to the threat of terrorism increases exponentially, fuelling the public perception of risk. This is illuminated by a another quote from Nacos et al:

“About three months before the kamikaze attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, an expert commission appointed by Congress in 1999 wrote [a report detailing the threat of terrorism in the U.S]. Of the more than 1,000 newspapers published across the country, only forty-three mentioned the commission’s report—many of them in a few lines.” Following the attacks, media attention increased exponentially; despite the fact the media apparently didn’t find coverage of terrorism to be worthwhile prior.

Therefore, we have determined that the perception of risk outweighs the actual risk of terrorism, and that this perception of risk serves to advance the interests of terrorist groups. We should attempt to reduce the perception of risk of terrorism in Canada and the U.S through education about the actual risks of terrorism and how to interpret media coverage.

Bibliography

Knight, Charles, and Melissa Murphy. Trends in the Incidence of International Terror Attacks on Americans After the Cold War. Project on Defense Alternatives. Massachusetts: Project on Defense Alternatives Briefing Memo #29, 2003.

Waxman, Henry A. The Bush Administration’S Data on Global Terrorism in 2005. U.S House of Representatives. Washington: U.S House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform, 2005.

Lemyre, Louise, Michelle C. Turner, Jennifer E. Lee, and Daniel Krewski. "Public Perception of Terrorism Threats and Related Information Sources in Canada:." Journal of Risk Research 9 (2006): 755-774.

Schuster Schuster, M. A., Stein, B. C., Jaycox, L. H., Collins, R. L., Marshall, G. N., Elliott, M. N., Zhou, A. J., Kanouse, D. E., Morrison, J. L. and Berry, S. H. (2001) A national survey of stress reactions after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, New England Journal of Medicine, 345, pp. 1507–1512.

Rubin, G. J., Brewin, C. R., Greenberg, N., Simpson, J. and Wessely, S. (2005) Psychological and behavioural reactions to the bombings in London on 7 July 2005: cross sectional survey of a representative sample of Londoners, British Medical Journal, 331, p. 606.

Nacos, Brigitte L., Bloch-Elkon, Yaeli and Shapiro, Robert Y. (2008) 'Prevention of Terrorism in Post-9/11 America: News Coverage, Public Perceptions, and the Politics of Homeland Security', Terrorism and Political Violence, 20:1, 1 – 25

Kellner, Douglas. "Media Spectacle and the Crisis of Democracy." Journal of Risk Research (2005): 25-39.