New policies often involve a degree of uncertainty and risk about their consequences for the public. It is therefore important to know if risk acceptance as an individual characteristic and risk perceptions related to a particular policy or to the absence of this policy influence the support of this policy (e.g. Ehrlich/Maestas 2010; Kam/Simas 2010).
This paper examines how risk acceptance, perceived threat of terrorism, and support of different anti-terrorism policies are related. This implies an investigation of the particularities of anti-terrorism policy. As anti-terrorism policy is intended to diminish the risk of terrorism, risk-averse people and people who perceive a personal or a national threat of terrorism (e.g. Huddy et al. 2005) are expected to support these measures. However, people might also reject anti-terrorism measures if they perceive the risk of civil liberties infringements.
The paper brings together psychological approaches about risk orientations, perceived threats, and framing effects. It theoretically discusses and empirically tests the interplay between risk acceptance, perceived threat, and support of anti-terrorism policies. By means of a survey experiment, we manipulate the framing of the policy in question (highlighting potential risks of civil liberties infringements or potential risks of insecurity) to examine if the context of a decision influences the support of anti-terrorism measures.
Within the scope of a research project on support for civil liberties, we use data from a telephone survey of a random sample of adults living in Germany. The paper provides evidence that risk orientations not only influence policy support but also the individuals’ susceptibility to framing effects in the context of anti-terrorism policy.
