Emotions, Attributions, and Policy Endorsement in Response to the September 11th Terrorist Attacks

Abstract

Abstract U.S. citizens' reactions to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, were examined, including emotional responses, attributions for the cause of the attacks, and policy recommendations. Participants whose emotional reactions were dominated by anger attributed the attacks to the fanaticism of the terrorists and to poor U.S. security and rejected the idea that U.S. foreign policy played a role in the attacks. They endorsed an aggressive military response and rejected humanitarian efforts. Participants whose emotional reactions were dominated by sadness, in contrast, denied that fanaticism and security lapses were to blame, and both sad and fearful participants expressed reservations about a strong military reaction. Path models suggest that the relationship between emotional reactions and policy endorsement was partially mediated by attributions.