Effects of Fear and Anger on Perceived Risks of Terrorism

TLDR

The aftermath of September 11 th underscores the need to understand how emotion shapes citizens’ risk responses. The study tests appraisal‑tendency theory by predicting that anger and fear will have opposite effects on risk judgments and policy preferences, and discusses the resulting theoretical, methodological, and policy implications. The authors surveyed 973 Americans, measuring risk estimates, precautionary plans, and policy preferences under experimentally induced and naturally occurring anger and fear. Results show that fear raises risk estimates and precautionary intentions while anger lowers them, with these effects observed for both induced and natural emotions, explaining most of the gender gap in risk perception and driving divergent policy preferences.

Abstract

The aftermath of September 11th highlights the need to understand how emotion affects citizens' responses to risk. It also provides an opportunity to test current theories of such effects. On the basis of appraisal-tendency theory, we predicted opposite effects for anger and fear on risk judgments and policy preferences. In a nationally representative sample of Americans (N = 973, ages 13–88), fear increased risk estimates and plans for precautionary measures; anger did the opposite. These patterns emerged with both experimentally induced emotions and naturally occurring ones. Males had less pessimistic risk estimates than did females, emotion differences explaining 60 to 80% of the gender difference. Emotions also predicted diverging public policy preferences. Discussion focuses on theoretical, methodological, and policy implications.