PERUVIAN STUDENTS REACTIONS TO A HYPOTHETICAL TERRORIST ATTACK

1
PERUVIAN STUDENTS REACTIONS TO A HYPOTHETICAL
TERRORIST ATTACK Eros R. DeSouza, Michael J.
Stevens, David Jauregui, Rose M.
Metivier Presented at the annual meeting of the
Association for Psychological Science, held in
Washington, DC., on May 24-27, 2007
gt Figure 1 (Source Office of
the Coordinator for Counterterrorism,
2004) Method Participants In 2006, we conducted a
study with 288 college students recruited from
five universities in metropolitan Lima, Peru. Of
these, 62 were women. The age for the total
sample averaged 21.62 years and ranged from 17 to
54 years. Most reported being mestizo/a (72) or
White (20), raised Roman Catholic (93), and
from a middle-class (55) or upper-middle class
(25) background. Participation was voluntary
and anonymous. Measures Procedure During
class, participants completed Spanish versions of
a demographic questionnaire, followed by 1 of 12
hypothetical terrorist-attack scenarios that was
randomly presented in the form of a newsflash.
In these scenarios, we manipulated three
different targets of a terrorist attack
(civilian, military, commercial), impact level of
the attack (high, low), and frequency of the
attack (first, latest in a series). These
scenarios were adapted from Bourne, Healy, and
Beer (2003). Then, participants indicated how
they wanted their government to respond to the
attack using the 12-point Conflict Thermometer
(Beer et al., 1995), which measures a continuum
of increasingly aggressive retaliatory responses.
Lastly, participants completed the 7-point
Personal and Institutional Rights to Aggression
Scale (PAIRTAS Malley-Morrison et al., 2006),
which contains 12 statements about war and peace.
Higher total scores reflect greater acceptance
of governmental aggression. Chronbachs alpha
for the PAIRTAS was 0.64.
Introduction Terrorism is violence of a political
and symbolic nature, perpetrated directly or by
proxy, with the aim of causing harm or damage in
order to intimidate civilians and influence a
nations policies and actions (Stevens, 2005).
Over the past 30 years, evermore groups worldwide
have adopted terrorism as a means of
sociopolitical change (Crenshaw, 2000). Forms of
terrorism can be ethnic, ideological (e.g.,
political, ecological), or state-based (e.g.,
state, state-sponsored). Victims of terrorism
can include civilians, military personnel, and/or
commercial targets. A growing literature
reveals the effect of terrorism on public opinion
and psychosocial adjustment. For example, using
the Conflict Thermometer (Beer, Sinclair, Healy,
Bourne, 1995), an index of support for
governmental aggression, Healy, Hoffman, Beer,
and Bourne (2002) found that undergraduates
preferred harsh governmental retaliation only
after repeated terrorist attacks. Given the
threats posed by terrorism in a post-9/11 world
(see Figure 1), it is vital to identify factors
that determine peoples reactions to terrorism.
Specifically, little is known about how the
target, impact, and frequency of terrorism
influence opinions concerning governmental
retaliation. Moreover, although the world is
becoming more globalized, little is known
internationally about reactions to terrorism.
For example, Peruvians endured 15 years of
domestic terrorism perpetrated by the Sendero
Luminoso, yet their views toward governmental
retaliation against terror remain
unknown. Therefore, we examined Peruvian
undergraduates reactions to an analogue
terrorist attack. We manipulated three variables
in the form of newsflashes target of attack
(civilian, commercial, military), impact of
attack (high, low), and frequency of attack
(first, latest in a series), and measured
preferences for governmental retaliation with the
Conflict Thermometer. We predicted the
following (1) terrorist-attack scenarios
depicting civilian targets would elicit support
for more aggressive governmental retaliation than
terrorist-attack scenarios depicting either
military or commercial targets (2)
terrorist-attack scenarios depicting high impact
casualty would elicit support for more aggressive
governmental retaliation than terrorist-attack
scenarios depicting low impact casualty (3)
terrorist-attack scenarios presented as the
latest in a recent series of attacks would elicit
support for more aggressive governmental
retaliation than scenarios presented as a
first-time attack and (4) the scenario depicting
a high impact terrorist attack on a civilian
target, which was the latest in a series, would
elicit the most severe retaliatory preferences
compared to the other conditions.
Results Discussion We conducted a 3 (Target) x
2 (Impact) x 2 (Frequency) ANCOVA on Conflict
Thermometer scores, with PAIRTAS scores as the
covariate. There were no significant differences
by target, which did not support the first
hypothesis. A significant effect emerged for
impact, F(1, 275) 6.44, p lt .05, partial eta
squared .02, which supported the second
hypothesis. High impact scenarios evoked more
intense retaliatory responses (adjusted mean
4.40) than low impact scenarios (adjusted mean
3.61). A significant difference was also found
for frequency, F(1, 275) 4.02, p lt .05, partial
eta squared .02, which supported the third
hypothesis. Scenarios depicting the latest in a
series of attacks (adjusted mean 4.31) evoked
more intense retaliatory responses than scenarios
depicting an initial attack (adjusted mean
3.69). There were no significant interaction
effects, which did not support the fourth
hypothesis. We should note that the sample was
one of convenience, consisting of relatively
affluent college students from Lima. Hence, the
findings should not be generalized to Peruvians
in the rural interior highlands, most of whom are
of Indian descent, and to older or younger
Peruvians with less education and income. It is
also reasonable to assume that there are regional
differences that we were unable to identify in
this study. In spite of these limitations, after
controlling for existing differences in tolerance
for governmental aggression (PAIRTAS), regardless
of the targets of terrorist attacks (civilian,
commercial, military), high impact attacks and
repeated attacks evoked more intense governmental
retaliation than low impact attacks or an
isolated attack. Not surprisingly, Peruvian
university students appear motivated for their
government to retaliate more aggressively when
greater losses are incurred following a terrorist
attack. Furthermore, after a first strike,
Peruvian students seem willing for their
government to negotiate with terrorists.
However, if attacks persist, they are willing for
their government to use armed conflict as a
viable response to terrorism. This escalation
effect dovetails with Beer et al. (1995), Bourne
et al. (2003), and Healy et al. (2002). Future
international investigations need to explore the
relationship between moral disengagement and
support for aggressive governmental responses to
domestic and/or foreign terrorism. In addition,
future studies should examine cross-nationally
the motives for initiating war or maintaining
peace. Note You may download this poster by
going to http//www.psychology.ilstu.edu/erdesou/
research/research.htm