When enough is enough: terrorism, counterterrorism, and public opinion

Abstract

ABSTRACT How does the public judge counterterrorism policy? Using conjoint analysis, I study the effects of terrorism and counterterrorism engagement on public opinion in a democracy, where public opinion is expected to have a greater influence on policy outcomes in the future. While conjoint analysis is being employed more frequently in terrorism studies, this is the first use of a survey to study the features of counterterrorism policy, as well. I assess public opinion towards the appropriateness of counterterrorism policy in the United States in the aftermath of a hypothetical attack. Findings suggest that democratic publics prefer more restrained counterterrorism measures, including measures having a less direct impact on the general public (i.e. monitoring exercises) and demonstrating the government’s commitment to democratic principles and institutions. However, these preferences can be reshaped by the features of an attack, including attack lethality and religious motivations. The findings from this study introduce another dimension to the conversation on provocation and have implications for successful counterterrorism policy in democracies.