Bombing Versus Negotiating: How Preferences for Combating Terrorism Are Affected by Perceived Terrorist Rationality
Bombing Versus Negotiating: How Preferences for Combating Terrorism Are Affected by Perceived Terrorist Rationality
复制标题
轰炸与谈判：恐怖主义理性如何影响打击恐怖主义的偏好
DOI：
10.1207/s15324834basp2804_12
复制
发表时间：
2006
影响因子：
2.4
通讯作者：
Sarah Butsch
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
E. Pronin;Kathleen A. Kennedy;Sarah Butsch
这项研究表明，人们对恐怖分子的偏见或理性程度影响到他们所倡导的反恐战略类型。在两个实验中，参与者阅读恐怖分子的描述，描述他们的决策要么植根于理性和客观性，要么被非理性和偏见扭曲。当恐怖分子被描述为有偏见和非理性时（相对于客观和理性），参与者更有可能主张对恐怖主义采取军事行动，而不太可能主张外交。这种影响是由对恐怖分子理性能力的看法而不是对恐怖分子的情感反应所介导的。这项研究还表明，对恐怖分子的理性和客观与非理性和有偏见的看法并不只是固定在个人的头脑中，而是会受到背景操纵的影响，包括假定的新闻报道。
This research demonstrates that the degree of bias or rationality that people impute to terrorists influences the types of strategies that they advocate for combating terrorism. In 2 experiments, participants read depictions of terrorists that described their decision making as either rooted in rationality and objectivity or as distorted by irrationality and bias. When terrorists were depicted as biased and irrational (vs. as objective and rational), participants were more likely to advocate military action against terrorism and less likely to advocate diplomacy. This effect was mediated by perceptions of terrorists' capacity for reason rather than by affective responses toward terrorists. This research also shows that perceptions of terrorists as rational and objective versus irrational and biased are not simply fixed in individuals' minds but can be influenced by contextual manipulations, including putative news reports.