Terrorism, Perpetrators, and Polarization: Evidence from Natural Experiments

We analyze whether affective polarization can be aggravated by terrorism violence. Terrorist attacks intensify preexisting ideological worldviews and partisan leanings and bring divisive political issues to the fore. Yet, they can also generate strong feelings of cohesion, solidarity, and unity as individuals from the entire political spectrum come together. To identify causal effects, we exploit a series of natural experiments in Great Britain and leverage the timing of fatal far-right and Islamic terrorist attacks and the date of interview of respondents in the British Election Study. We find that Islamic attacks increase affective polarization, whereas far-right attacks depolarize the electorate. We provide evidence that this discrepancy can partly be explained by the perceived salience of attacks and different attitudes towards contentious and polarizing issues.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
The Journal of Politics
Published
2024-09-17
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1086/732969
Citations
7
Primary Topic
Terrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political Violence
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
7.92
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Terrorism, Perpetrators, and Polarization: Evidence from Natural Experiments

Georgios Efthyvoulou, Harry Pickard, Vincenzo Bove, Riccardo Di Leo
7 citations
The Journal of Politics
Terrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political Violence
7.92
article

Terrorism, Perpetrators, and Polarization: Evidence from Natural Experiments

Georgios Efthyvoulou, Harry Pickard, Vincenzo Bove, Riccardo Di Leo
article en
7 citations

Abstract

We analyze whether affective polarization can be aggravated by terrorism violence. Terrorist attacks intensify preexisting ideological worldviews and partisan leanings and bring divisive political issues to the fore. Yet, they can also generate strong feelings of cohesion, solidarity, and unity as individuals from the entire political spectrum come together. To identify causal effects, we exploit a series of natural experiments in Great Britain and leverage the timing of fatal far-right and Islamic terrorist attacks and the date of interview of respondents in the British Election Study. We find that Islamic attacks increase affective polarization, whereas far-right attacks depolarize the electorate. We provide evidence that this discrepancy can partly be explained by the perceived salience of attacks and different attitudes towards contentious and polarizing issues.

The Journal of PoliticsVol. 87(3)
IMT School for Advanced Studies Lucca (IT), Newcastle University (GB), European University Institute (IT), University of Sheffield (GB)
Openalex Percentile: Top 3%
Terrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political Violence
7.92
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.